Comment

Comment by T Stirhen on June 24, 2012 at 10:03pm

(con't) Secret arrest and indefinite detention; without charges, without evidence, without hearing, without counsel, and no court could issue an injunction, or writ of habeas corpus, or certiorari. The German people were in the hands of the police, the police were in the hands of the Nazi Party, and the Party was in the hands of a ring of evil men who wanted to rule the world.

The concept then was to control the world; the concept now is to make a one-world “government”. Tell me, what is the difference?

Comment by T Stirhen on June 24, 2012 at 10:02pm

(con't) A presidential decree was created suspending the extensive guarantees of individual liberty contained in the constitution of the Weimar Republic.

Those decree’s were restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion - including freedom of the press, on the right of peaceful assembly, the right of association, and violations of the privacy: postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications; and no need for warrants for house-searches, orders for, confiscations as well as restrictions on property, etc all taken away under the guise of “keeping the people safe”. {much like what is happening within the USA today, as all of the “restrictions” on our freedoms are “for our own safety”}.

Many were arrested as “belligerents” – no real crime committed, just disagreeing with the destruction of their legitimate government.

Comment by T Stirhen on June 24, 2012 at 10:02pm

Take the UN Agenda 21. It takes away our right to own property. It takes away property we may already own. It all gets taken for the "community" good. Before you all give up, states are banning this. If you did not know, states and the people have more power then those in the federal government (except we, our parents, let them take more illegally for themselves) - under our legitimate government.

Have any of you read "Opening Statement" by Justice Robert H. Jackson, Chief of Counsel for the United States (Nuremberg Trial)?

Does this sound familiar? (con't)

Comment by T Stirhen on June 24, 2012 at 9:57pm

This is an attack on the USA from inside - domestic enemies and traitors.

Dumping our legitimate government should not be the issue. DEFENDING it is the issue.

Comment by T Stirhen on June 24, 2012 at 9:56pm

A government may have the ‘power’ to do something though not have the legal backing to do so. If Congress passes a law, or the President passes an executive order (automatically illegal), that is in conflict with/or is against the Constitution, the act creates ‘law’ but does not make it legal because it HAS to be constitutionally lawful. However it may be enforced by police action and be unconstitutional and illegal, yet carry the appearance of law. It gets enforced because law enforcement agencies and/or the military does not keep their Oath to “Support and Defend the US Constitution” BEFORE the duties of their position, and instead blindly follows orders, even illegal ones.

Comment by T Stirhen on June 24, 2012 at 9:55pm

Executive orders are using the executive branch to write law.

According to our constitution Congress is the ONLY government body that has legislative power. Article one states, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress...”

Notice the word “All”. There is NO room for interpretation. It does not mean most legislation and it does not mean all legislation except what the President may wish to pass, it means ALL.

Comment by T Stirhen on June 24, 2012 at 9:51pm

The amendments of the Constitution are not to be subect to vote. This means Congress does not have the power to pass laws concerning these rights.

What they are doing is illegal in OUR country under our legitimate government.

Comment by T Stirhen on June 24, 2012 at 9:51pm

The Constitution grants our government limited specified powers, and only those powers – no one serving within our government can legally take more powers. It clearly defines government limitations to protect the liberties of the people. The preamble to the Bill of Rights clarifies that purpose, while the Bill of Rights directly sets limits on the federal government. It makes clear that the federal government has no power to infringe on rights we already naturally possess, or to limit traditionally held privileges - such as trial by jury

Comment by T Stirhen on June 24, 2012 at 9:50pm

America is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. It is similar to a democracy because it uses the democratic process to elect representatives, etc. The critical difference is that it has a Constitution that defines and limits the powers assigned to the government. They have way overstepped that limit. But WE allowed them to.

Comment by T Stirhen on June 24, 2012 at 9:47pm

How about instead of letting those who are behind the scenes decide for us (Election Fraud) we CHANGE the way we vote back to LOW TECH.

Not voting is a "vote" for whoever those behind the scene wants put into office. Taking back our vote means we do NOT have to vote for the "lesser of two evils". That we do not even let them run.

Right now there has been election fraud in all the states (GOP) that have voted. The first election Bush was literally put into office. Obama and H. Clinton were put at the head of the DNC by fraud.

This is OUR country. Just because illegal laws are now being implemented does not mean we have to allow this to go on. Call for the arrest and prosecution of EVERY single domestic enemy of the USA in all three branches (not all are, about 97% are tho.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 30
• 31
• 32
• 33
• 34
• Next ›
• Page