Comment

Comment by ATUM RA on February 6, 2013 at 6:41am

Still not convinced? I’m not surprised, I have to work five times harder than the cool kids do, to make a point that can no longer be debated. In other words I must provide five times the proof and it had better be from far more credible sources than what the cool kids can get away with. I’m not hating, I’m just saying.

I already know, you think that there has been a plot since the beginning of America to overreach the founding documents and an agenda inside our own government to usurp power where there is none permissible. You are correct. But, the government was still de jure and the founding documents could still be used to correct the bad element infiltrating America. As we are all aware today, the founding documents cannot be used to correct the bad element who has infiltrated America and any attempts to do so would create a constitutional crisis. In other words the historical operating system does not support the language being written on the de facto operating system and to try to mix the two languages who crash the old de jure system. America would fall in a minute if it were forced to use the historical operating system to operate this de facto government. It came to the point of no return in 1963, and the de facto operating system replaced our de jure operating system.

Look!!! Everyone knows to follow the money to get to the truth. In 1962 the obligation clause on our money stated “This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private, and is redeemable in lawful money at the United States Treasury, or at any Federal Reserve Bank” In 1963 the obligation clause was changed to read “This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private” And by 1969 The first $1 Federal Reserve Note; "Will pay to the bearer on demand" was removed; and the Seal in Latin was replaced by the seal in English.

Comment by ATUM RA on February 5, 2013 at 5:23pm

I will give you another clue as to the day America died. In 1963 The US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence died, died, died. In 1963 the de jure United States of America was replaced with the de facto rogue element that is still in power today. The following publication from http://www.sott.net/article/221525-November-22-1963-The-Day-America-Died [Laura Knight-Jadczyk Sott.net Mon, 22 Nov 2010 09:00 CST] is a supporting pillar to my claims. Will you see it?

I've already written - more than once - that most of what we know as history is a pack of lies and the dedicated historian has to read as fast as they can, remember as much as they can, and have a really good ability to analyze the data in order to come even within hailing distance of the truth, i.e. 'what really happened.' In the case of current events, the active and careful historian has a little bit of an edge if they can catch initial reports before they are buried or spun. That is what someone did and then put together a video entitled Evidence of Revision. I highly recommend this rather painful trek into the past via on-the-spot news reports as well as audio and video tapes that were later retrieved and added to the collection. I can assure you, seeing what was reported in real time, observing the spin machine going into action, is an experience you'll never forget.

As far as the varying books about the assassination go, "Farewell America" is one of the saddest books ever written. It was by a pseudonymous author, James Hepburn, who was widely believed to have been a member of the French equivalent of the CIA. Hepburn based his book on hard intelligence gathered from French, Russian and even American sources. It was originally published in French in 1968 and was unavailable in the United States for many years. With the coming of the internet, it became available and I truly wish that every American would read it. 

With remarkable skill and insight, the book outlines the overall situation in America at the time, and describes the players and most probable conspirators involved in the horrific and brutal public execution of probably the best president America ever had. There are many reasons to think that George H.W. Bush was involved in the plot, and today, having placed his idiot son on the throne, the world is so far from that world we could be living in had Kennedy lived, that it is like we all died back then, and now we have awakened in Hell. 

They weren't satisfied to just kill Jack Kennedy; they went for his brother Robert as well. And when JFK's son, John-John, grew up and began to display the same characteristics of his father: decency, intellect, and a sense of obligation to help others, he had to die also. The situation actually has all the makings of an immortal myth: the good and noble Prince snatched from his cradle and replaced with the psychopathic offspring of an ogre. 

I don't know if it is only me noticing these things, but it seems all the good heroes are dead; and we notice that they all had three things in common: an ability to move the masses by their simple presence, a feeling of unity with all people regardless of nationality, ethnicity, or social status; and the most important of all, the thing that meant they had to die: they were totally opposed to War. Is it too 'conspiracy minded' to point this out? To wonder how the human race has had such inexplicable bad luck to have lost all it's decent, anti-War heroes? 

Well, anyway, we are left now to our own devices; or rather, at the mercy of the ravening, bloodthirsty wolves that took away from all of us the best hope we ever had: John Fitzgerald Kennedy, tearing him to bloody pieces right before our eyes. 

And what did America do? 

Nothing. And on the day that the American people allowed their president to die on the street, a victim of the filthiest examples of deviant humanity ever to take human form, and not rise up en masse to demand that the killers be brought to justice, that is the day America died.

Comment by ATUM RA on February 4, 2013 at 2:27pm

Ok, Donp. Real briefly, the image of me reflected in this forum is an accurate image of the man you would meet in person. Sometimes I just forget that being liked by others is something that they take into consideration when they observe my overall credibility. I usually respond pleasantly when I am engaged by another pleasantly, and probably should make most of my responses that way, if for no other reason than to just be respectful of the sanctity of all life forms. I doubt anyone here would disagree that our overall image in this forum would look much better to observers if we all made an effort to be a little nicer, when we are in a major disagreement.

I don’t think it surprises anyone that what you want out of a good conversation is the black and white of it. That is the you that I’ve come to know, and that’s not a bad trait. Unfortunately, I am going to use the grey areas to hopefully lead you to a black and white conclusion. You will not find any law recorded in the public archives that officially verifies that the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence is declared void. I have very good reason to believe that those documents are in fact void at this time. There are new versions of all three that are already written and continue to be rewritten to one day replace the historical ones. That’s why I made the statement that at this time the government is de facto. If for no other reason one could easily conclude that the media has been being used to prepare the minds of Americans to embrace and even welcome the changes that are underway. It is a necessary evil for them to have to go through this long and deceiving display to the public to get them onboard with the new Entity. The signs are all around us and the media reports them; if you have eyes to see, then have a look at the signs.

In the case of Libya, President Barack Obama has consulted with congressional leaders, but sought no authorization for his military operation against Col. Moammar Gadhafi's regime.

At a press conference in Chile on Monday Obama gave no indication that he thought any congressional authorization was needed.

Instead of seeking a vote by Congress to affirm his actions, Obama repeatedly cited as his authority the United Nations Security Council resolution passed last week.

This was, he said Monday, “an international mandate from the Security Council that specifically focuses on the humanitarian threat posed by Col. Gadhafi to his own people.” http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42201792/#.URAmbx00WSo

“…the U.N.’s actions to date indicate that the ATT is likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy, and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights.” The lawmakers adamantly insist that the U.S. Government has no right to support a treaty that violates the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Democrats have accused Republicans of making this a political issue, maintaining that the treaty poses no Second Amendment threat. Others, such as former U.N. ambassador John Bolton, caution gun owners to take this initiative seriously. He believes that the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.” http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/10/the-u-n-arms-trade...

In order to provide covert funds for the Kuomintang (KMT) forces loyal to General Chiang Kai-shek, who were fighting the Chinese communists under Mao Zedong, the CIA helped the KMT smuggle opium from China and Burma to Bangkok, Thailand, by providing airplanes owned by one of their front businesses, Air America.^[5][6]

The CIA has been accused of moneylaundering the iran-contra drug funds via the BCCI, the former U.S. Commissioner of Customs William von Raab said that when customs agents raided the bank in 1988, they found numerous CIA accounts.^[7][8] The CIA also worked with BCCI in arming and financing the Afghan mujahideen during the Afghan Waragainst the Soviet Union, using BCCI to launder proceeds from trafficking heroin grown in the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderlands, boosting the flow of narcotics to European and U.S. markets.^[9]

ccording to Peter Dale Scott, the Dirección Federal de Seguridad was in part a CIA creation, and "the CIA's closest government allies were for years in the DFS". DFS badges, "handed out to top-level Mexican drug-traffickers, have been labelled by DEA agents a virtual 'license to traffic.'"^[20] Scott says that "The Guadalajara Cartel, Mexico's most powerful drug-trafficking network in the early 1980s, prospered largely because it enjoyed the protection of the DFS, under its chief Miguel Nazar Haro, a CIA asset."^{[20] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_drug_trafficking}

^{ATF conspiracy, Fast and Furious-}As more information on Operations Fast and Furious and Wide Receiver was revealed in 2011, Mexican officials, political commentators and media reacted with anger.^[131] Mexican officials stated in September that the U.S. government still had not briefed them on what went wrong nor had they apologized.^[132]

Due to several failed attempts at coordinating with Mexican law enforcement in the apprehension of suspected arms traffickers in the Wide Receiver and Hernandez cases,^[37] and concerns about widespread corruption, details of Operation Fast and Furious were not shared with Mexican government officials, and they were deliberately kept out of the loop after related firearms began turning up at crime scenes and in criminal arsenals in 2010. The U.S. Embassy in Mexico and the ATF Mexico City Office (MCO) were also kept in the dark. According to Attorney General of Mexico Marisela Morales, the Mexican government was told about the undercover program in January 2011, but they were not provided details at the time.^[132]

Morales stated, "At no time did we know or were we made aware that there might have been arms trafficking permitted. In no way would we have allowed it, because it is an attack on the safety of Mexicans." In addition, she expressed that allowing weapons to "walk" would represent a "betrayal" of Mexico.^[132] Morales said that her office would search "to the end" in order to clarify what happened in Fast and Furious.^[133] In November 2011, it was reported that the Mexican Attorney General's office was seeking the extradition of six citizens of the United States implicated with smuggling weapons.^[134] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal

We officially moved into the next stage of the crisis today. AIG, likely under pressure from the administration, decided to come clean about where most of the bailout money was going. In apress release with several attachments, the struggling insurer detailed which counterparties had gotten about $100 billion of the bailout funds.

I added up the various lists provided by AIG by country (see below), and the results were quite revealing. About $44 billion went to counterparties headquartered in the U.S., such as Goldman Sachs and states such as California and Virginia.

But as I expected, the majority of the funds—$58 billion—went to banks headquartered outside the U.S. The big winners were French and German banks, which pulled in $19 billion and $17 billion respectively

In effect, the U.S. Treasury and Fed have been bailing out the rest of the world, to a massive degree. http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/20...

H.R. 347 (and it's companion senate bill S. 1794); aka the "Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011." Sounding more like an appropriations bill authorizing monies for federal grounds landscaping -- this bill, better known to those in the DC beltway as the 'Trespass Bill' -- potentially makes peaceable protest anywhere in the U.S. a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeanine-molloff/trespass-bill_b_13282...

At least two American lawmakers have stated on the record that, in their opinion, Section 1031 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 legalizes or authorizes martial law in the United States. Senator Mark Udall stated "These provisions raise serious questions as to who we are as a society and what our Constitution seeks to protect...Section 1031 essentially repeals the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by authorizing the U.S. military to perform law enforcement functions on American soil."^{[14] [like removing} due process and habeas corpus by allowing the US military to detain and/or kill US citizens. My added citation] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law

All of this is repugnant to the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence. It must be concluded that these documents are no longer in force or have any effect. At the very least all of these acts committed by the de facto United States government would create a Constitutional crisis in a de jure jurisdiction. These historical documents are history.

Comment by donp on February 4, 2013 at 9:51am

     AR, I take everything you write under consideration.   And like Jeff mentioned, we know you’re trying real hard.  Yes, I erroneously jumped to the conclusion that Putin made the “Constitution is dead” comment.  If BO supposedly made this irresponsible comment, then we wonder why Putin is advising BO about socialism.   If this country has a penchant for mistakes such that we like becoming even more socialistic, then that is our decision to act with stupidity.  We don’t insinuate foreign law into this republic.

    A side comment; Michael is anything but a dummy, and your allusion doesn’t enhance your image to the rest of the group who know him personally.  You have more quality than this, as Craig cautioned.

     I appreciate your source material of the earlier mentioned quotations.  Those reading your posting can quickly see the quality of the opinion makers that you rely upon.  Personally, I’d not give these sources any credibility.  I’m interested only in the law of this country, not the usual patriot bits and pieces.  Are you a student of attorney Eduardo M. Rivera? 

    There exist a few maxims or principles that I find helpful.  You might consider their use if you like them. 

     The first concerns the fact that I never consult with or listen to a politician or any functionary to explain the meaning of our founding documents.  They generally don’t know what it says or means and their personal agenda generally encourages them to besmudge the truth.  When they make statements, we give it no credence until we verify it with our own analysis.

    One of the drawbacks to the otherwise useful internet comes from the frequent administration of false information dispensed by agents-provocateur. Not that your opinions and conclusions are false due to the internet, but they infer that you’ve found an information source that misunderstands the legal history of this country. 

    Another maxim worth considering comes from the fact that virtually no main-street-media source justifies our belief that they speak the truth.  They broadcast to entertain and to propagandize the reader or listener.  Like politicians, media people, with rare exception, are on the “stage” busily deceiving their audience.  They’ve master legerdemain.  

    Believe it or not, think-tanks “experts” firmly guide the functionaries of this county.  American Presidents have performed as stooges for their in-house manipulators and handlers for centuries.  There are a couple of puppeteers currently moving BO on a moment by moment basis. 

   

 

Comment by ATUM RA on February 4, 2013 at 9:00am

Craig, It is my personal opinion, having observed the facts that Michael is a dummy.

I didn't demand an apology from Michael when he called me a joke and a disinformation agent.

I didn't demand an apology from you when you referred to my interpretations on the Constitution to the sort of legal theory advanced by armchair and self proclaimed experts selling their product as an accessory among 'freemen' and libertarian circles.

Cowboy up for once in your life Craig and admit it is you who is suffering 'butt hurt' by calling for apologies and claiming some crap about TOS that clearly if I'm in violation of, so are you.

If this is what we should expect any time someone asks you to provide a credible source for your assertions - I provided 5 other sources. It's obvious that neither you nor he are going to call them non-credible sources, so your argument is already trash.

It is obvious that you have a hard time staying on topic in these forums, but since this is my blog, let me remind you to stay on topic in here. That goes for Michael too. Nothing gets accomplished when the conversation just turns into a poo throwing riot. If you object to what anyone writes in here, do it nicely [and so will I]. If you have anything to add on topic, do it nicely [and so will I]. Should be simple enough. Now show me that big smile.

Comment by Craig Lonquist on February 4, 2013 at 8:18am

ATUM RA- I believe you owe Michael an apology. The ad hominum insults are not appropriate here and are in violation of terms of service of this private webforum. If this is what we should expect any time someone asks you to provide a credible source for your assertions, then you might develop some interpersonal skills to hold your namecalling and find some other solution for your 'butthurt' about being questioned. No one here, particularly the forum administrator, is obligated in any way to tolerate the 'dummy' stuff.

Comment by ATUM RA on February 4, 2013 at 7:05am

Glad to see you back on the bandwagon Michael. Glad to see that we have filtered out 2 left wing nuts on this Tea Party site now. Go back to sleep in NBC, CBS and ABC DREAMLAND. Out ofSIX publications, you find one that you want to rip on??? Do you have some information proving that the publication from whatdoesitmean is incorrect or are you just sleep typing again [my money's on sleep typing again]? Why didn't you call the other FIVE publications a joke? Just like in law, dummy, the claim stands unless properly rebutted. I doubt you can properly rebut the publication, but if somehow you did, you still have five more publications to rebut, so that your head can remain in the clouds.  Good luck sleeping dummy.

Comment by Michael Bryant on February 3, 2013 at 6:52pm

You slowly support your grand exposition by reporting that the Russian President allegedly said that he believes “the USC is dead”. – Actually what I said was that Obama said it. http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1299.htm

Sorcha Faal. You rely on this for information. What a joke. Like the ATUM RA, just another disinformation agent.

Comment by ATUM RA on February 3, 2013 at 3:19pm

Actually Donp, I would be very happy to have you take this at least under your consideration. You seem to be well respected in this Tea Party forum, and if you believe at least that it is possible that what I say has happened, people like you could have a heavy influence on a coming revolution that absolute should take place when People really begin to notice the changes that will start taking place. I will tell you now that I am not going to give you the smoking gun, it’s extremely difficult to understand all of the degrees in which this happened, somewhat unbelievable, and I probably couldn’t tell it exactly right anyway. Not only that, but I don’t have the right to tell it, and there are some things that I am just going to respect. Just because my lips are sealed doesn’t mean that I might not be able to show you other things that might lead you to believe what I state is correct though.

“When did the American People repeal, annul or amend the Great Statute of ’76?  If the Americans have not affected these actions, then clearly this Statute has all the power it ever had.  It’s well known that the USC merely enacts the Great Statute!” – Ask yourself who were the “makers” of the US Constitution. It says "We the people of the United States". Was that all of the People of the United States? Or did a hand full of lawyers misrepresent themselves as "We the people of the United States"? Which "We the people of the United States" could repeal, annul or amend it now? You, me, and all of the other US Citizens or another handful of lawyer misrepresenting themselves as "We the people of the United States"? BTW, there are other ways to void any contract, in fact there are new ways being found to void contracts all of the time. How many People and which ones does it take to void a contract?

You slowly support your grand exposition by reporting that the Russian President allegedly said that he believes “the USC is dead”. – Actually what I said was that Obama said it. http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1299.htm

“You next want us to accept an alleged quote from Justice Scalia.  We can’t accept this without a specific citation references” - http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/29/justice-scalia-constitution-is-dead/   Now you could take that to mean that he is just saying that it is not a living document, but if that’s the case why not just say that and leave it at that? Rather, he goes on to say that it is “dead, dead, dead.”

“You then came up with the patently absurd claim that: “Obama has signed an Executive Order voiding the U.S. Constitution”.   Your citation is also missing.” – You may go to the TEA PARTY COMMAND CENTER at http://teapartyorg.ning.com/group/the-communist-takeover-of-america...   and read that President Obama has, in effect and right before the presidential election, voided the Unites States Constitution and made the United States Government a Communist entity. A link to the EO is provided on that page. [It was actually void before that anyway. Think about it. How else could a so called EO create those laws?]

Comment by ATUM RA on February 3, 2013 at 11:47am

Craig Lonquist, 

Perhaps NRA and ABC publications suit your fancy better than publications from world news and infowars. Leaked information about radical changes rarely gets their foot in the door in the mainstream media. It will eventually get there, but it is most likely that by the time it does, the real truth behind the actions taken will be filtered and twisted to deceive the public into what they want them to believe happened and not what really happened behind the scenes. You are free to believe everything that ABC, CBS and NBC tells you though.

From the NRA:

“I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the Constitution of South Africa … a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights …”  -Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Jan. 30, 2012.

Especially in the mainstream media, Justice Ginsburg’s comments—made during an Egyptian television interview on Jan. 30, 2012—were generally treated in isolation or ignored. For most Americans it was just a sound bite.  A fleeting controversy. A mere blip.

So the big story—intentionally ignored by the big media—is that Justice Ginsburg’s enthusiastic embrace of the South African Constitution is a long-range political movement to create a “progressive” constitution to ultimately supplant our founding documents.

Its purpose was described in a May 26, 2009, New York Times Magazine article: “… the organizers set out to gather together a group of scholars to define a progressive constitutional agenda for the coming century. … the democratic constitutionalists see courts and political movements as partners, influencing each other and society as a whole.”

Among the initial participants of the 2005 gathering of progressive legal stars were two Soros operatives destined to be key Obama handlers in his presidential campaign, the transition and in the White House: John Podesta and Cass Sunstein. Podesta ran Obama’s transition team. An outsider/insider with unique access to the president, Podesta oversees perhaps the most successful of the organs of the multi-gazillion dollar Soros policy/influence machine—the Center for American Progress. It has been a font of left-wing ideas that the Obama White House has turned into policy.

And that brings us to Sunstein, who, predating Ginsburg’s comments, expressed an even giddier endorsement, calling the South African Constitution “the most admirable constitution in the history of the world.”

Sunstein, who was tagged as an “informal” Obama campaign advisor, is the White House regulation czar, director of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs—a powerful position in which he serves as a gatekeeper for all new federal regulatory changes. Sunstein, on leave as a Harvard law professor, is an incredibly prolific “progressive” far-left legal scholar espousing a host of ideas any reasonable person would just call “weird.”

He would ban all hunting. Sunstein has proposed giving animals—yes, cows, dogs, rats—standing to sue in court. He would afford them a quasi-constitutional personhood.

Sunstein is calling for government censorship to create diversity of thought. Imagine this man writing a new First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and it could happen.

Although there is no secret about the existence of the “Constitution in 2020” movement (anybody can find it on the Internet), the radicals who would deface the current Constitution plan to do so by stealth. Stealth will be in the details written way below the surface or created by alternative means such as administrative law or international treaties and agreements. The real threat will come “under the radar,” as President Barack Obama is wont to say.

And the deniable goal clearly is to supplant our rights, memorialized for Americans with our unique position as the freest people in the world, with a bizarre set of government-granted privileges masked as “rights”—a kind of leftist cultural affirmative action creating unprecedented social division: a constitutional caste system between the American people. It will be a reflection of President Obama’s now ubiquitous cultural war.

What is your fancy on newsblaze? From newsblaze:

In an interview with a Chicago public radio station, Obama went on to explain that the Constitution, in his view, was a "charter of negative liberties." Obama expounded, "It says what the states can't do to you, it says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf."

Recently, Obama surrogate and U.S. congresswoman, Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), fired-up a crowd before Obama took the stage, telling them that America needed a second Bill of Rights that gives all Americans state guarantees of welfare.

Now I know that this will strike your fancy as it comes from ABCNews:

PHILADELPHIA, PA — Here in the City of Brotherly Love this morning, following in the footsteps of his hero President Abraham Lincoln, President-elect Obama will call for "a new Declaration of Independence" and ask Americans to invoke the same spirit of our Founding Fathers to get through these challenging times.

"What is required is the same perseverance and idealism that our founders displayed," the President-elect will say, calling for a new declaration of independence "not just in our nation, but in our own lives – from ideology and small thinking, prejudice and bigotry – an appeal not to our easy instincts but to our better angels."

"But we should never forget that we are the heirs of that first band of patriots, ordinary men and women who refused to give up when it all seemed so improbable; and who somehow believed that they had the power to make the world anew," he will say. "That is the spirit that we must reclaim today."

For me… This is just rhetoric coming out in media in little bits and pieces to soften the public up to the coming change over. As I say, you may never be told the truth about why this happened, but you will see it happen and probably be told a bunch of junk to sell you on the new deal. This is not something that is going to happen; it has already happened, now they are just beginning to transition the minds of Americans to the changes that are on their way.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page