Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Justin A Horne on January 3, 2013 at 12:05am

Brothers and Sisters in the struggle, the oppressor is ubiquitous! This impassive force never maintains the same anatomical base, but morphs in different contours: whether it be in government, finance, law enforcement, military, or media. Far reaching and magnetizing are its techniques, as they use copious rhetoric to distort truth and even seemingly incontrovertible doctrines--the doctrine I speak of in particular is the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment to our constitution states:         

                  A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

                                       But they ignore the literature of this sacred tome in order to render us defenseless, pacified, tame, and docile so they can easily mobilize an offensive against the people. Gun control is an iridescent  predicament;it is not adherent to any particular hue of people, it effects all commoners.  The first step to unmitigated genocide is the ceding of one's firearms to a tyrannical government. The scariest force to a fascist polity is an amalgamated force of citizens who are keen to the diabolical plans of their government. In order to succeed in their aims, they must crush any antinomy to their fallacious vista of progress.  Armed citizens mutinize against there captors and unarmed citizens are capsized. This has been put on display in countries like the Soviet Union,Turkey, Germany, China, Guatemala ,Cambodia, and Rwanda just to name a few. American History--not the American History taught in our work plants disguised as schools-- also reveals to us the gun bans during the times of the Atlantic Slave Trade, The Middle Passage and The Reconstruction Era(black codes anyone) to name a few. For instance,  the North Carolina Supreme Court recognized a right to bear arms in 1843, then a year later transposed the document to say that free blacks were not included. This is something Rev Al sedition should look into since touts himself as a "black leader." Fred Hampton is rolling over in his grave listening to that disgrace of man! But, anyway, my brothers in sisters be stoic in your defiance. Just know that I am with you on the front line.

           Peace,

       Justin A. Horne

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tara on January 3, 2013 at 12:21am

Right on Justin, that is why I left the vid I did because I think that it is sooo important for all to watch. Please... if any of you out there have an hour to spare... please watch the vid. It's about life and death to me.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by T Stirhen on January 3, 2013 at 2:56pm

Nice post, but the part YOU are forgetting is we are sovereign, we have ignored them to our peril.

Important to understand is that the Oath they all take is a legally binding REQUIREMENT of office. If I was a citizen of Illinois I would be scrambling to replace him for "no longer meeting the REQUIREMENTS of the position he is currently occupying".

Of course, that is something we all need to do in our states: know the US Constitution, know YOUR state Constitution, know Treason laws, Know what applies to the Oath. Here is some info for you on all to start with. Plus know our treaties laws. UN's Agenda 21 and all who support is are supporting unconstitutional takeover of the USA - treason; be it people, corporations, etc.

Let's start with Treaties, like those we have with the UN.

Article 43 Paragraph 3 of the Charter of the United Nations provides that all resolutions or agreements of the United Nations Security Counsel “shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.” 

All treaties are subservient to the exclusive congressional power to commence war.

Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 18, the United States Supreme Court held: There is nothing in [the Constitution’s text] which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. 

November 19, 1919, in Section II of his Reservations with Regard to Ratification of the Versailles Treaty, TO PRESERVE THE BALANCE OF POWER ESTABLISHED BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION FROM EXECUTIVE USURPATION, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge resolved as follows:

The United States assumes no obligation to preserve the territorial integrity or political independence of any other country or to interfere in controversies between nations - whether members of the League or not - under the provisions of Article 10, or to employ the military or naval forces of the United States under any article of the treaty for any purpose, unless in any particular case the Congress, which, under the Constitution, has the sole power to declare war or authorize the employment of the military or naval forces of the United States, shall by act or joint resolution so provide. (caps are mine)

Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267, the Supreme Court of the United States held: The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent. 

Unconstitutional usurpations by one branch of government of powers entrusted to a coequal branch are not rendered constitutional by repetition.

The United States Supreme Court held unconstitutional hundreds of laws enacted by Congress over the course of five decades that included a legislative veto of executive actions in INS v. Chada, 462 U.S. 919. 

Section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 clarifies Presidential authority to undertake military action as follows: The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. 

United States v. Smith, 27 F. Cas. 1192, Supreme Court Justice William Paterson, a delegate to the Federal Convention from New Jersey, wrote on behalf of a federal circuit court: There is a manifest distinction between our going to war with a nation at peace, and a war being made against us by an actual invasion, or a formal declaration. In the former case it is the exclusive province of Congress to change a state of peace into a state of war. 

In his concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 642-643 (1952), which rebuked President Harry Truman’s claim of unilateral war powers in the Korean War, Justice Robert Jackson elaborated: Nothing in our Constitution is plainer than that declaration of a war is entrusted only to Congress. Of course, a state of war may in fact exist without a formal declaration. But no doctrine that the Court could promulgate would seem to me more sinister and alarming than that a President whose conduct of foreign affairs is so largely uncontrolled, and often even is unknown, can vastly enlarge his mastery over the internal affairs of the country by his own commitment of the Nation’s armed forces to some foreign venture.

In their dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia recognized the “Founders’ general distrust of military power lodged with the President, including the authority to commence war:

“No fewer than 10 issues of the Federalist were devoted in whole or part to allaying fears of oppression from the proposed Constitution’s authorization of standing armies in peacetime. Many safeguards in the Constitution reflect these concerns. Congress’s authority “to raise and support Armies” was hedged with the proviso that “no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.”

U.S. Const., Art. 1, §8, cl. 12. Except for the actual command of military forces, all authorization for their maintenance and all explicit authorization for their use is placed in the control of Congress under Article I, rather than the President under Article II. As Hamilton explained, the President’s military authority would be “much inferior” to that of the British King…” (Citing Federalist 69, Supra.)

On to Treason and other crimes:

Clause 2 of Article VI of the Constitution: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

The Constitution of the United States of America IS the Supreme Law of this land, NOT those who serve within the federal government.

Title 18 US code section 2381 - Treason: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

18 USC § 2382 - Misprision of treason: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.

{That would be the Senate, congress, and Boehner, Holder, Pelosi, H. Clinton, and the rest of that adminstration. Don't forget that both Bush's, and Clinton and thier adminstrations also committed these crimes and need arrest and prosecution.}

18 USC § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection: Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

{That would be "change" and using propaganda, lies, misinformation, and a *corporate media cartel}.

*Almost 100% of the mainstream media is owned by seven companies: Disney, NewsCorp, TimeWarner, CBS, Viacom, NBCUniversal, and Sony. They control everything: movies, television, all the major newspapers and news, and even music record labels.
When one company dominates an industry, it is a monopoly. When a handful of companies cooperatively dominate an industry, it is a “Cartel.” This is what we have with our mainstream media - an elite group that is cooperatively and covertly controlling everything that comes through our television, radio, newspaper, and theater.

“It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.” Supreme Court, Red Lion v. FCC,  1969}

{Manipulating public opinion to destroy the US Constitution, our legitimate gov is treason.}

18 USC § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy: If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

{Fast and Furious - Press Releases about it in EARLY 2009, David Ogden the talking head for Obama; Benghazi, Giving the UN 'authority' over the USA - using UN laws, UN here to 'monitor' OUR USA elections, UN taxing us, UN Military on USA soil}

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof... assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof...

{Giving the UN 'authority' over the USA, over the US Military - Obama, Panetta, Dempsey. UN & NATO with the assistance of this administration, the Bush administration, the Clinton administration, the Bush 1 administration...}

{The UN does NOT have any authority over the USA, nor does anyone serving in any branch of our legitimate government have the power to give them any authority over the USA - Not to decide OUR gun laws, tax us, watch our elections, use our natural resources, put Agenda 21 here in the USA, use our military and any of "our" Generals, etc or representatives who allow it are committing treason - that would be Panetta, Dempsey, and Obama, Holder, (plus H. Clinton, J.Napolitano, David Ogden, N. Pelosi, etc) who said they do NOT represent the USA, they represent the UN. Obama said in a letter to Boehner, Panetta and Dempsey in front of the senate - on video. Foreign laws and Shariah laws used in US courts}

Breaking their Oath means they no longer meet the legal REQUIREMENTS of the office or position they are occupying plus are committing a criminal act.  Here are the laws applying:

Clause 2 of Article VI of the ORIGINAL Constitution: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” 

The Constitution of the United States of America IS the Supreme Law of this land, NOT the federal government. 

The first law statute of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution.

The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

The requirement for all Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4.

They are BOUND by their Oath to support the Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction, are subject to charges of impeachment and censure.

Once given, the Oath is binding for life, unless renounced, refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office or of discharge.

Solemn: “Legally binding, Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited”, “The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration – both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to”.

Bound – “Being under legal or moral obligation; to constitute the boundary or limit of; to set a limit to; confine”

Legally Binding: Common legal phrase. Lawful action, such as an agreement consciously agreed to by two or more entities, establishing lawful accountability. An illegal action, such as forcing, tricking, or coercing a person into an agreement, is not legally binding. Both parties knowingly understand what they are agreeing to is the other requirement to legally establish an agreement or contract.

Consideration: According to “Black’s Law Dictionary,” consideration in a contract is a bargained for exchange of acts or forbearance of an act.

Require, Requirement, Required: "to claim or ask for by right and authority; Mandated under a law or by an authoritative entity. That which is required; a thing demanded or obligatory; something demanded or imposed as an obligation."

“Blacks Law Dictionary” states that a contract is
1. An agreement between two or more parties creating obligations that are enforceable or otherwise recognizable at law.

The Framers placed the Oath of Office Clause BETWEEN preceding clauses that set forth the organization of the executive department and succeeding clauses that specify the contours of the President’s executive power. The President takes the oath after he assumes the office but before he executes it. The location and phrasing of the Oath of Office Clause strongly suggest that it is not empowering, but that it is limiting - the clause limits how the President’s “executive power” is to be exercised.

The Framers placed “Oaths of Office” in the Constitution. These Oaths are to function as “checks” on the powers of the federal government and protect us from usurpations.

Each Branch of the federal government has “the check of the Oath” on the other two branches. The States, whose officials also take the Oath of Office, have the same check on all three branches of the federal government. And “We the People”, the “original fountain of all legitimate authority” (Federalist No. 22), have the Right to overrule violations of the Constitution by elected and appointed officials. 

Article VI, clause 2, says the Constitution, and the Laws & Treaties authorized by the Constitution, are the “supreme Law of the Land”.

Webster’s 1828 Dictionary says for “Constitution”: “…In free states, the constitution is paramount to the statutes or laws enacted by the legislature, limiting and controlling its power; and in the United States, the legislature is created, and its powers designated, by the constitution.”
If any Branch fails to obey the “supreme Law”, then, in order to preserve the Rule of Law, the other Branches, or failing that, the States or THE PEOPLE, must overrule them”.

Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order that further defines the law for purposes of enforcement.

5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office.

5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law,

5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”.

The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath of office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.

The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311.

One provision of Executive Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration … of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.”

Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States.

Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331 which alters the form of government other by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.

President Truman relieved MacArthur because MacArthur did not support the requirements of the Constitution and did not faithfully discharge his duties. Precedent.

Washington court-martialed Thomas Dewees, finding him guilty of two offenses: (1) not taking the oath of office... Another precedent - there are more.

Also helps to know this:

Any order, from any authority or source including a sitting President, which violates the Constitution, is to be refused, for all “lawful orders” are 'pursuant' to the Constitution. Ed; If a President issues an un-Constitutional order, the peace officer, firefighter, or soldier is honor-bound to refuse that order. Any soldier following an unlawful order is subject to the UCMJ and liable for court martial. The Constitution is the written, willed voice of the People, and it requires of its agents an Oath which is sworn [or affirmed] to the Constitution itself, not to the government which that Constitution created.

Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654 (Dick Act) breaks the militia down in three groups. The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are:

The organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia,

The unorganized militia (Now All able-bodied people between the ages of 18- 45) and

The regular army. It further states: The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

This is in every state.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bildo on January 3, 2013 at 4:39pm

Well, right at the start you said, "we are sovereign". I need to question that. If you are a US citizen you are not sovereign and not protected by the dejure Constitution. A US citizen is the lowest rung of the ladder. You have "no standing in law". You are bankrupt and held as collateral for the debt of Corp US which you are subject to. This is done by voluntary contract, even though you were not given full disclosure. Without full disclosure it is a contract built on fraud, but if you do nothing about it, it still stands as a binding contract as long as you continue to consent.

Silence is construed as consent.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tara on January 3, 2013 at 2:38pm

BREAKING: New York Legislature to Introduce Bills Making Posession ...

BREAKING: NRA Cautiously Optimistic on Defeating Illinois Gun Ban Bill

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by T Stirhen on January 3, 2013 at 2:40pm

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS

    Subject only to the police power, the right of the

individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be

infringed. (Source: Illinois Constitution.)

Remember, Oaths are a legal REQUIREMENT - taking and keeping it is the only way those in office can LEGALLY remain there

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tara on January 3, 2013 at 5:39pm

The shyte is getting nuttier and nuttier in Illinois... check this out!

 Belleville, IL Cops Boycott Denny’s

It’s not exactly news that gun owners have a tough row to hoe in the Land of Lincoln. But cops, too? bnd.com reports that “Belleville Police Capt. Don Sax said five on-duty detectives were eating about 10 a.m. Tuesday when restaurant manager David Rice approached and advised a female detective that she needed to take her weapon, which was visible to patrons, out to her car or leave the restaurant.” Funny, most restaurants like to see the local constables come in for a meal. Keeps the riff raff out ensures an air of domestic tranquility. Not Denny’s, though . . .

Not the one at 1130 South Illinois Street, anyway.

A spokeswoman for Denny’s Corp. Liz DiTrapano said in response to a concern raised by a guest about a customer with a firearm, the manager approached the individual and communicated that Denny’s policy does not permit firearms in the restaurant.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tara on January 4, 2013 at 12:29am

http://12160.info/group/gunsandtactics/forum/topics/illinois-democr...-

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by truth on January 7, 2013 at 11:56am

Good News: Gun Registry Assault Weapon Ban Pulled From Consideratio...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Central Scrutinizer on January 7, 2013 at 12:17pm

Don't rest yet Oh great fighter of truth ;)

These immoral pricks won't give up that easy

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bildo on January 7, 2013 at 3:30pm

It ain't over yet.

http://www.infowars.com/breaking-alert-next-vote-on-illinois-semi-a...

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page