"Damn The Country, Obama Must Fail"

Originally posted by Geladinhu
reply to post by Hal9000

 

I think I don't understand.
Was that a joke?
I'm guessing it was.

Yes it was a joke because people are already not working and have reduced spending just like you are suggesting, but it is not by choice. It is because they were layed off of work because of the recession. If that continues even more jobs will be lost because the lost business because everyone has less money to spend.

You would be hurting the businesses, but would be hurting ourselves as well and no one will go along with that.

Just saying.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


You left out one very important fact. Obama has got everything he has pushed for because of the Dems control over Congress. Yes I'm sure Republicans are out to make him fail, Thats what this Republican wants them to do now that he (Obama) lied to the whole nation hundreds of times.

If I though Obama was a stand up guy and really did good things then I and most of America would back his play but he is not and he is out to ruin this country. He has not recommended one good bill yet, He is forcing legislation that borders on criminal just like Bush.

I agree that the lobby has to be banned but so does Obama, Pelosi and the rest of the Socialist who play Democratic leaders.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Thank You Sir...

I stand corrected...by invoking Natural/Common Law vs USC/Maritime Law we step outside the "Squared Circle" and declare their "Law" holds no sway over us...

We go straight to the source of said divisions in Law and call them out at their own game...what a revelation this would be to the masses..."Our Laws aren't Binding?" :shk:

Excellent call my Friend...

Law of the United States
en.wikipedia.org...

Admiralty law
en.wikipedia.org...

The British Legal System of Mixed Common and Roman Law has been used to Enslave US(A)
www.biblebelievers.org.au...

New information about the US Constitution has come to light since this paper was written. That information may effect the value of some of the following information. The Constitution was never properly ratified; and, is, therefore, not a proper Common Law constitution. It appears that it is being used as a Roman Law 'operating orders' or 'ship's orders'; as, all bodies politic and corporate are make-believe ships in the Roman system.
~
Also, it has recently come to light that the court systems operate their admiralty type law within the confines of a 'contract' in all of the British, and former British Empire. The clerk of the court, the prosecuting attorneys, and the judges proffer the contract, and the defendant blindly and ignorantly accepts the offered contract by acquiescence and obedience to court orders and sentences. A defendant convicted and sentenced, even by a jury (in an admiralty/equity court) only need to inform the judge that he/she refuses the offered contract and/or sentence of the judge. As a contracting party, the defendant does not have to accept a contract by imposition against his/her free will. As has happened, when such a refusal of the contract is made, the judge will use legal trickery and bluster to attempt to get the defendant to accept another contract. The defendant need only to continue with: "I do not accept your sentence." Or, where applicable: "I do not accept your offer of contract." The latter statement may be placed upon served court documents and returned (signed and dated) to the clerk of the court.

Would this hold the solution to our Dilemma?

[edit on 8/12/2009 by Hx3_1963]

Originally posted by Geladinhu
reply to post by Credge

 

The Greater Good and the Individual are the same.
Nothing is truly divided. Division is an illusion.

The good for many at the expense of the individual and the individual at the expense of all others are rather related evils by the law of one. Basically you've reduced it to masochism.

The blood sacrifice necessary in this polar reality and concomitant suffering is the evil whether you're killing a virus with your immune system, eating a salad or committing genocide. Even the greatest saint doesn't escape it here.

"Division is an illusion" does not excuse lack of compassion. Knowing it charges one with special responsibilities however.

Originally posted by Sky watcher

I agree that the lobby has to be banned but so does Obama, Pelosi and the rest of the Socialist who play Democratic leaders.

You know, I've been meaning to say this for quite some time ...

"Socialist" is a noun not an adjective.

It's actually very funny and tragically indicative of peeps McCarthyistic mentality when they use it as an insult.

[edit on 12 Aug 2009 by schrodingers dog]

So AIG bailout was planned by Republicans to screw Obama?

This country should just die so that people can experience a life without Twinkies and Expresso machines.

We gotta go sometimes,

might as well start learning Chinese.

[edit on 8/12/2009 by die_another_day]

Originally posted by die_another_day
So AIG bailout was planned by Republicans to screw Obama?

[edit on 8/12/2009 by die_another_day]

Did you forget the recent past so soon? The economy crashed last October WHILE BUSH was still in office. AIG, FAnnie Mae Freddie Mac, Bear Sterns, All got the Bail out on Bushs watch.

Lehman Bros got turned down as a token failure allowed to die.

This depression is bigger than dem/rep Dont delude/divide yourself over party politics.

Both parties care nothing for us and all for themselves.

[edit on 12-8-2009 by titorite]

reply to post by Hx3_1963

Thank You Sir...

I stand corrected...by invoking Natural Law vs USC/Maritime Law we step outside the "Squared Circle" and declare their "Law" holds no sway over us...

We go straight to the source of said divisions in Law and call them out at their own game...what a revelation this would be to the masses..."Our Laws aren't Binding?"

A decade and some back I found myself standing in a Federal Court Room outside of Washington D.C. in Greenbelt Maryland. An attorney appointed for me had negotiated an agreement on my behalf that the Federal Prosecutor had told him the day before they planned to renege upon in open court.

I hit the encyclopedias the evening before for some strange reason and fixated on a crash course in Roman Republic Law, Latin Legal Phrases, and acceptable and widely practiced ploys in the Ancient Roman Empire and Republic and garnered all the prerequisite condiments to employ them just in case my attorney had no luck as an act of desperation that I thought might impress the Judge I was a pseudo intellectual. My attorney did an abysmal job and I asked the Court permission to bench him and launched into a well rehearsed in my mind sketch employing six different Ancient Latin Legal Ploys and maneuvers hoping I would at least be humored in them, but not knowing what to expect.

Each time I evoked the Latin Phrases and pointed to evidence of their intent gathered by me in the gallery the Prosecutor winced as if I was stabbing a knife into him. At first I thought it might be because I was mispronouncing the Latin, but by the third one based on the engrossed look on the Judges face and the worried looks on the Prosecutor and his assistant I was beginning to think there was something more than bad pronunciation at play.

Forty five minutes later after exhausting my arguments there was not a dry eye in the courtroom everyone from the female Federal Judge to the Prosecutors, Secret Service Agents, U.S. Marshalls, Probation people to the litigants waiting to be heard after me were in tears.

The Judge spend 15 minutes wordless minutes whipping through law book after law book with a worried look on her face as she went through a collection of over a dozen, carefully reading passages and then smiled and said “Good News”!

It surely was, I left the courtroom a free man after the Prosecutor had turned down a standing offer for me to serve 15 months the day before to try to obtain a 5 year sentence.

He assured the Judge when she pronounced the sentence that he had no intention to file an appeal.

The U.S. Marshall guarding the courtroom told me in 22 years of court service he had seen maybe 2 or 3 attorneys put on such a masterful performance and insisted upon shaking my hand as did everyone in the courtroom except for the Judge who cordially wished me luck in my future endeavors.

I had no earthly idea what the heck had happened and didn’t for several more years before learning that I had actually unbeknownst to me identified myself through my language and strategies as being an Actual Roman Citizen due all the Rights and Privileges a true free Roman Citizen had.

Talk about dumb luck. Read boys and girls, you truly have no idea what’s in some of those books until you learn it and go to apply it.

True story.


[edit on 12/8/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by Sky watcher

I agree that the lobby has to be banned but so does Obama, Pelosi and the rest of the Socialist who play Democratic leaders.

You know, I've been meaning to say this for quite some time ...

"Socialist" is a noun not an adjective.

It's actually very funny and tragically indicative of peeps McCarthyistic mentality when they use it as an insult.

[edit on 12 Aug 2009 by schrodingers dog]

In all fairness, the language is modular and adaptitive to differing communicative needs or else it would be useless in a world of fleeting manifestations regardless of whether or not Kommies and Ruskies and Reds are our worst enemy.

I guess ultimately you'll have to answer to the Coca-Cola company and not kindly ATS constituency.

This is quite scary. Political overthrow of President Barack Obama would mean riots. Race war? Perhaps. Sounds like a document I read. Well done Bill! Well done! ATS roots for you!

-Ze'Jesta

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
A moving story indeed Sir...

I thought I'd introduce a Etymology and Origin post on your Avatar Subtitle...your informed comments/posts are priceless...

auctorictas principis
www.reference.com...

Political meaning in Ancient Rome

Politically, auctoritas was connected to the Roman Senate's authority (auctoritas patrum), as opposed to potestas or imperium (power) , which were held by the magistrates or the people. In this context, Auctoritas could be defined as the juridical power to authorize some other act.

The 19th-century classicist Theodor Mommsen describes the "force" of auctoritas as "more than advice and less than command, an advice which one may not safely ignore." Cicero says of power and authority, "Cum potestas in populo auctoritas in senatu sit." ("While power resides in the people, authority rests with the Senate.")

A popular translation is 'the ability to make people do what you want, just by being who you are.'

Encyclopedic dictionary of Roman law

[edit on 8/12/2009 by Hx3_1963]

Originally posted by Sky watcher
You left out one very important fact. Obama has got everything he has pushed for because of the Dems control over Congress.

No....*sigh*....he hasn't. Maybe you should just stay out of the debate. 'Kay?

Go check the "important facts".....find some way to support those comments, then come back and try again. Otherwise, your rhetoric is the same that contributes to the problem.

An ignorant populace.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Just to share my own story for a moment.

I had to goto court. I thought that if I told the truth I would be free. For I was not guilty of the crime for which I was accused.

My first time in court I asked to represent myself. The Judge talked me out of this. At one point he put his hand over the mic and talked to me candidly and convinced me to take a public defender.

I went back to court with a public defender.

The public defender spoke to me only once and it was the day of my trial.
He encouraged me to take a plea. I tried to plea with him that I was innocent that I wanted to fight to prove my innocence but I was told that if I tried to do that that I would be found guilty and serve two years in state jail where as if I plead guilty I would serve one year or that he might even be able to get me a better deal.


I went with the deal.


6 months probation turned into 1 year incarceration.

That was my first rodeo. My first time in trouble. Knowing what I know now if I had it to do over again I would of represented myself and had the judge thrown off the bench for covering the mic thus interfering with court records.

I keep my nose clean these days but only through trial and error. At least I can say NEVER AGAIN WILL I BE A VICTIM OF TYRANNY!

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler



Congrats!! You've given truth to the phrase "dazzle them with bull#"....

Originally posted by MrPenny
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

Congrats!! You've given truth to the phrase "dazzle them with bull#"....

A bit of a simplistic view...this BS you speak of...

More along the lines of being an informed "Citizen of Rome" and knowing your rights under Natural/Common Law...something that has been buried and subverted over the century's...turning citizens into "Straw Men" with no actual rights...treated as a piece of Property...controlled by a Corporation...with no real legal standing under Natural/Common Law... :shk:

[edit on 8/12/2009 by Hx3_1963]

reply to post by Hx3_1963

A moving story indeed Sir...

That particular instance though based entirely upon blind and dumb luck, and desperation to make purely emotional appeals, which were all the ploys were based upon, revealed a hidden world of law, and a hidden world unto itself. My attorney told me there was no way to beat the Federal Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Guidelines and in reality had I presented myself as simply a federal citizen (property of the corporation) I would not have been able to.

Romans loved spectacle and theatre of all types and valued entertaining performance from the Arenas, the Coliseums, Hippodromes, Theatres and the Courts. The more entertainment you could provide in your predicament the more Romans and the Roman State were inclined to show mercy. Free Roman Citizens had exceptional privileges and leeway as opposed to those non-citizens living in the provinces and of course the slaves had no rights at all.

At that juncture in time all I knew was attorneys are fond of Latin and the Laws are laced with it and I felt my best way to get a crash course on what the Latin actually meant was by looking at the original culture that used it, and how they used it, for what purpose and what end. I literally had no idea if I would be mocked and belittled and perhaps even found in contempt for my attempts at putting on what was basically just a series of often used highly elaborate and staged emotional appeals for leniency.

I had no idea that standing in a Federal Courtroom for the Nations Capital was in hidden reality a Court of the Roman Empire and I had accidently presented myself unbeknownst to me also as being a true free Roman Citizen through the words I evoked and actually providing the true level of spectacle and entertainment to match.

One of the things the U.S. Marshall said, was “That was a rare privilege to watch, thank you very much, I enjoyed that”.

The knowledge I have today about the actual hidden Roman Empire we are governed by is much more formidable but one of the many things but perhaps the most tangible thing that we live in Rome was how my performance was received in the Federal Courthouse and the entirely unexpected outcome not even allowed for under U.S. Federal Law.

I hadn’t evoked the U.S. Constitution but the Roman one that in fact appeared to have actually trumped U.S. Constitutional Law and Federal Law. My attorney seemed entirely oblivious to what I had accomplished but the Prosecutor recognized it fairly early on and there is no doubt in my mind that a hidden system of law exists outside the long discarded Constitution for those very few individuals who know of it and call it into play.

Today in similar circumstances I would simply declare myself Sovereign and a Natural Human being and insist that the Judge and all other Officers of the Court communicate their true and respected powers fully as I communicate mine in exchange as a natural human being who is not bound by there illegal will to impede or impinge on my liberty and recite all of history’s still binding legal documents and treaties that legally prohibit them from doing so…once I communicate my respective powers under Nature’s Law which is what the Discarded Constitution is about. Almost every statute on the books is unconstitutional. What is constitutional is the Constitution itself, the Bill of Rights and the first 12 amendments, after that the Law in the Federal United States Code is just an endless wish list of punishments and fines to gain riches on the back of the citizen that the Constitution never allowed for.

Few people dare to believe that or even know or suspect that, but the actual legal laws of this land fit on a couple of pieces of paper, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the first 12 Amendments and everything else is a Corporation trying to exercise control and ownership that they can only legally do if you enter into the contract by allowing them to impose their will through submitting to it.

It was of course harrowing standing in a cavernous Federal Courtroom where everything is supersized to make you feel small and insignificant and stand up in front of a towering bench higher than most rock star’s stages on arena tours and have a robed figure look down upon you with the power of freedom and life and death over you in a atmosphere where you could hear a pin drop.

All part of the spectacle, the show, the attempt to intimidate you into submission and accept their authorities and contract and it works well until you discover and realize you do have a moral authority of your own which is why I put it in Latin in my Avatar, people should known and choose to be free and to be sovereign and stop letting a dictatorial regime that terrorizes them and enslaves and impoverishes them have carte blanche authority over their life.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the First 12 Amendments did not allow for it, and believe it or not, that is the whole collection of Constitutional Law for anyone who wants to remember and act like they are a citizen of America.

Roman law Trumps it, but Nature’s Law Trumps it all.

Are you human or are you a slave?

That's a question everyone has to ask themselves and then ultimately learn to be and conduct themselves as a sovereign human instead of a corporate slave.

That's what I have learned, and I have learned that is the truth.

reply to post by titorite


An excellent but sad story my friend. I am sorry it turned out that way for you but in reality as hard and unfair a break as that was it leads to the real lesson.

Lawyers are Esquires, one step bellow a Knight on the Nobility ladder. They are officers of the Court. Their first obligation and duty is to the court. Their oath of office first responsibility is to the court, and so are Judges. The Court is not a fair nor impartial thing the Court is the State, the Court is the Actual corporation and when you stand before it the first thing they always look at is if I let this man or woman go does the court make more money off of taxes if he has an honest job and pays them or does the court/state/corporation make more money off of making him labor for the corporation in Jail or Prison.

You are simply an asset to the corporation a piece of property they wish to manage for maximum profit. Money is not real but simply paper so having stolen money is not actually a loss to the State/Corporation. All physical goods or services you might have stolen are prepaid already through the slave labor system that produces them for the corporation so once again no loss has occured.

If you didn't damage the corporation's property be it human or physical the corporation has in fact suffered no loss. When you speed the corporation suffers no loss, it is merely looking to gain, most of the laws are like that unconstitutional attempts to infringe upon your actual rights as a human being and to get you to submit as a slave constantly to authority and order.

Slaves are taught this is a good thing, to be orderly, non-thinking and compliant in all ways to authority and actually will get indignant at other slaves and turn them into authority even when they see a fellow slave not submitting and complying.

It's a twisted system our forefathers did not want or allow for under the Constitution. If you didn't kill a man or steal his horse basically anything else you might have done illegal to another citizen simply is a matter of a what is then a debt between you and him if you are found guilty of having done it. There is no debtors prison! In other words under the Constitution if you robbed me of a thousand dollars and you are found guilty, you owe me 1,000 dollars. its purely a civil matter where shame on me I let myself get robbed!

In a constitutional court you would simply be ordered to pay restitution. You can not return my money incarcerated and that's why there is no debtors prison.

You have to work to do that, but under the corporate state I loose my 1,000 dollars and you go to jail and make 30,000 for the corporation as punishment.

Stupid system unless you are the corporation. I the victim am out in the cold and gain nothing, you the perpetrator are more or less first robbed of your liberty and then robbed of the profit of your labor while imprisoned by the corporation.

The lawyers set it up for people and all congress is, is a collection of lawyers looking for ways to trick citizens into providing income to the corporation/state and to them as officers of the court who bind you to the court in your contract with them as a client. They become you in the eyes of the law, and how they represent you is to benefit the court/state/corporation not you, unless you are a person of notable wealth, prestige or actually know the law, which most people aren't aware of either of the three.

People have no earthly idea what they lost when Lincoln destroyed the constitutional government and set up the dictatorial corporate state, hardly anyone alive knows the truth of what it is to be American the actual real power of the constitution or how to call it into play because the whole system has been taken over by a corporation who uses it all as a myth and illusion to get you to believe that as they are enslaving you that you are actually not just free but freer than anyone else anywhere else in the world.

Incredible huh?

Sorry how things worked out for you, hopefully in the future you can represent yourself the way you are learning is possible and is legal.

They my friends are the criminals not you!



[edit on 12/8/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

A word about 'language' may be in order here....

If I may presume to quote something...

(from H.L.A. Hart's "Definition and theory in Jurisprudence" TLQR Vol.70 1954)

... There too we have been told by turn that the name of a corporate body like a limited company or an organization like the State is really just a collective name or abbreviation for some complex but still plain facts about ordinary persons, or alternatively it is the name of a fictitious person, or that on the contrary it is the name of a real person existing with a real will and life, but not a body of its own. And this same triad of theories has haunted the jurists even when concerned with relatively minor notions.

In other words, you must accept that as we discuss the essential basis of any reform, we must re-learn how to analyze what it is we are talking about. It isn't enough to use the words without completely embracing the framework, which translates into one thing: recrimination, rhetoric, and pointless histrionics can become traps, keeping you from synthesizing the solution which I am presuming you are all intentionally or unintentionally pursuing.

Further, I happen to agree with him in reference to something very relevant he relayed from history....

(same source)

Long ago Bentham issued a warning that legal words demanded a special method of elucidation and he enunciated a principle that is the beginning of wisdom in this matter though not its end. He said that we must never take these words alone, but consider sentences in which they play their characteristic role. We must not take the word "right" but the sentence "You have a right" not the word "State" but the sentence "He is a member or an official of the State." His warning has largely been disregarded and jurists have continued to hammer away at single words.

Frankly, I believe that if we are theoretically constructing a new framework here, we must not repeat the mistakes of those who have succeeded only in distancing the people from the body of the law - the law as "we" mandate it...,

----------------------------------------------
For those of you who enjoy a linguistic irony, Bentham may have suffered the fate of failing to follow his own logic. In order to convey his message to posterity, he saw fit to invent new terms to represent his logical insight. He created a descriptive terminology to represent his ideas, and because of their specialized nature, they never took. Not many of us actually use words like, "Archetypation" or "Phraseoplerosis".
----------------------------------------------

I apologize for not having links to this text, as I only have it in written form.... see? Reading is FUNdamental!

[edit on 12-8-2009 by Maxmars]

Originally posted by EnlightenUpThe good for many at the expense of the individual and the individual at the expense of all others are rather related evils by the law of one. Basically you've reduced it to masochism.

You've misinterpreted what I said. Or maybe I wrote it poorly.

There are two possible scenarios:

1. An individuals rights and freedoms are equal to all other individuals rights and freedoms.

2. A collectives rights are greater than an individuals rights.

To expand upon this, while a collective might contain individuals, that individual holds no freedoms or rights. Instead, it is the collective that does.

Or, to give you a true polar opposite about what this really means, it's the difference between communism and libertarianism (anarchy).

To apply that to this situation, the individual would be the voter. Each person has one vote. This would include any and all people that are non-felons above the age of 18.

The collective would be "Washington". Both the democratic and republic party, the lobbyists, etc. Or, to put it another way, the collective=money.

Currently the collective is more important than the individual.

In a good and working system, all individuals will have equal rights regardless of how much money they have. Each person has one vote. In other words, instead of lobbyists trying to sway those at the top, lobbyists would be trying to sway EVERYBODY equally. This would typically result in little to no lobbyists because they would have to spread themselves too thin and would have little impact.

That is, essentially where we are at now. The collective is more important than the individual. What most here want is a role reversal. The individual needs to be equal to all other individuals. The result would be that the individual is more important than the collective because the collective would have no sway in the matter.

The (simplistic) way I look at this is…

The Federal Government is a massive Corporation, with thousands of Subsidiaries’ (Companies), that in turn serve the Master/Masses…

The Companies must pay licensing fee/tax/ect, for the right to produce Goods/Services…

We are employed at said Companies to provide services or produce goods for the masses, earning a wage…

The Companies, after paying their Expenses/Staff/Stock Holders, use a portion of what’s left in Lobbing the Government in hopes of gaining favor and getting contracts that favor their Company, a self sustaining entity (in theory)…

The larger/more powerful a Company becomes, the better chance it has to merge or acquire smaller Companies, becoming larger/more powerful…

Our wage/labor is then taxed to support the Master Corporation…a self sustaining entity (in theory)…

In all actuality no Company or Citizen completely owns anything of real value they possess…

You can pay on your house for 30 yrs to acquire a “Deed/Title”, but, if you fail to pay your Land Taxes, your house can be forfeited to Government…

You Car…fail to pay Licensing Fees/Taxes/ect; said car will be revoked…

Your Personal Goods…fail to pay your Income Tax and said Items will be revoked… :shk:

[edit on 8/12/2009 by Hx3_1963]