"Damn The Country, Obama Must Fail"

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by memarf1

 

Friend if you want to actually start learning some of this history I and others would be happy to share with you sources and resources on the turbulent ups and downs of actual American and European and Roman History that all fall into play at various times in various ways.

You do need to back off the advessarial stance though if you want to learn more about the actual history of the nation.

Riding in and demanding we accept fairy tales isn't going to really cut the mustard.

As interested as I would be in the Holy Roman Empire thing, and the war of 1812, but you have lost all credibility with me. I wish you had lost it with the others on this thread b/c your claims are simply lies and you continue to propogate them. I have provided you proof of your inconsistencies and simply incorrect information. You are not interested in the truth, you are interested in skewing the truth to fit your fantasy. That is not what ATS is about, and I cannot believe you have not been flagged for this. I'm in search of the truth and I hope the rest of you are too.

As far as terms and conditions go, I am not your friend so please stop referring to me that way.

reply to post by memarf1


I understand your reluctance friend to debate these things honestly or in good faith.

The topic is about the influence of Lobbyists in the United States Government.

Have you anything to say on topic friend that I can answer for you in regards to that?

There are too many lobbyists influencing government!

reply to post by Hx3_1963


You've got to admit that the fundamentalist, evangelical Christian, gay hating, Satan paranoid introduction to that really does damage to the credibility of that paper.

Originally posted by Hx3_1963
reply to post by memarf1

 

Greetings good friend...

I suggest you re-read my prior post...and notice the bold/under-lined text...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Hail Caesar!!!

I think you need a more reputable source. They make claims but don't list their sources. Read my previous posts and you will see that in fact we did have a Quorum. This is simply a majority of members. This has historically been used for filibusters and the like. Article 2 Sec 3 of the U.S. Constitution provides the power required by the president to call either or both houses back into session. The 36th congress had 230ish members in the house and 66 in the senate. The 37th had more than 1/2 of that, and thus a majority or a quorum. These are historical facts that can be verified.

I don't know about the Holy Roman Empire thing, but your source has it's own agenda and thus you need some more reputable ones. Try some encyclopedias or the U.S. Constitution. Even Wikipedia has more peer review than the site you quoted above.

Some details of Ohio's admission to the USA can be found here. It includes the sale of some authentic documents too

Cowan Auction

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by memarf1

 

There are too many lobbyists influencing government!

Yeah, that one I think I will agree with, regardless of anything I disagree with. Corruption requires no prerequisite lawful condition to allow corruption, thus no sophistry should be needed to wake someone up to it.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


I have no reluctance to debate opinions, it is the facts that should not be debated. It annoys me to no end to see someone like you, protoplasma, arguing with me about facts that I know to be true and have verified to be sure. When I am wrong I am always the first to admit it, it's really too bad not everybody is like that.

In answer to your question, sure, I'll respond to that, I was simply trying to correct your facts before, but I will gladly provide my unsubstantiated opinion without claim of truth or source. I was only doing fact checking on your post that lead me to show how wrong you were before.

My Opinion is that we do have many to many lobbyists influencing our government. It is rediculous that lobbying is even allowed, I mean what more can we do to trample on democracy and corrupt our officials. I have a friend who says we need a "The People's Lobby", of course thats a joke b/c our officials are supposed to be that! I'm okay with lobbyists being lobbyists, if they were not allowed to provide money to our politicians. I think lobbying is a great and efficient way to get ideas to our congress.

That said, I think there are far to many avenues of corruption with the way our lobbying is and can be run today and thus needs much regulation added to it. I think it is horrible that special interests, whos description in itself concludes a minority stake, get far to much from our politicians and our laws.

[edit on 22-9-2009 by memarf1]

reply to post by EnlightenUp
Are you referring to how the original rights of confederation based upon the Magna Charter...(giving average people rights under the King)...were based upon god's law/common laws and fashioned after separate branches of religion divided into branches of Government?

I noticed nothing about *gays* per say...perhaps you could enlighten us where you've drawn this reference...

In regards to Government & Religion...

I believe our Fore-Fathers were God fearing men and wanted to instill morals in the new Nation...

To bad it's poor etiquette to display the 10 Commandments anymore...anyone notice that *flap*?

Edit: Anyone notice the 1/2 angle vs the 2/3 angle???
Hmmm...

[edit on 9/22/2009 by Hx3_1963]

Originally posted by Hx3_1963
To bad it's poor etiquette to display the 10 Commandments anymore...anyone notice that *flap*?

Yeah, that really grinds my gears. If I'm offended by something I usually just ignore it. In fact, maybe we should all say that we are offended by those people who are offended and then they can be exiled like our statues and flags that have been in place for a century or more!

reply to post by crimvelvet


Maybe you could direct me to a particular page of these documents? They are pretty neat but for the most part they are verifying the statehood of Ohio in 1803, not the contrary which the others are claiming. If there was confusion after 1812 I would like to read about it from a reputable source and these documents would seem to be from the horses mouth so to speak.

reply to post by memarf1


Make no mistake about it my friend, I was neither wrong, nor am I confused about what is at play here at the moment.

A very convincing little ruse for sure, just like having lobbyists function as bagmen to the Corproate Government that was set up in 1861.

The Lobbyists in the Corporate Government set up in 1861 really have to much influence on the Corporate Government set up in 1861.

Of course all the Lobbyists represent Corporate interests to interface with the Corporate Government set up in 1861.

One of the biggest lobbyists to the Corporate Government is AIPAC I am sure you are familiar with them?

Trix are for kids, have a nice day

The military needs to step in and remove everyone from both houses, and the presidents office. They can set up a governing body for 6 months while States Start a process of gathering state representatives from their court district jury pools. Congress will be like jury duty, but with good pay while you are there part time and your employer MUST keep your position open for you. No lifetime benefits, etc.

To remove special interests you institute a reward system, any representative who reports an "offer" from a special interest receives double the offer which will come from a fine of said interest/group/company.

Yeah I know it could lead to different kind of fraud but much more controllable I would think.

Of course no lobbyists allowed on government property.

For president, every four years every state governor can run for President only a small number will. You have a cascading series of debates and "contestants" can be voted off like American Idol until you are down to 5-6. They then receive say 5 million from a government campaign fund and THAT IS ALL THEY ARE ALLOWED TO SPEND. This would go along ways to restoring states rights and importance also.

Just a few ideas all open to addendum.

[edit on 22-9-2009 by I_am_Spartacus]

BTW: I guess I should include this, as it was mentioned and I commented on it...

The UNITED STATES - The New Roman Empire
www.scribd.com...

~
The Law of Rome in America

If Lincoln and those who came after him did away with the Constitution, common law, and other Law that constituted the traditionally vested right of the people, what was put in its place?

The answer here is, in the history of law there are but two distinct kinds; God's Law and man's law, the principal example of which is Roman law represented in the codes of Justinian.

The original Constitution for the united states of America, as an instrument of common law procedure, was, through the same law, descended from the Law of God through canon law as developed in England and America.

Further, the three branches of the civil power that were written with checks and balances built in, reflected the colonial governments that existed prior to the Constitution.

These governments were, in turn, based upon the dominant form of church government in each colony.

Thus, the colonial government of Congressional churches found expression in civil governments dominated by a legislature.

Presbyterian churches fostered a civil government that leaned to the judicial side, while Anglican, or Episcopalian forms favored the executive branch.

When Lincoln brushed all this law and tradition aside, he replaced it with the only law available as a codified whole, i.e., with the codified laws of Rome, by Justinian.

There are some who will ask why Lincoln did not import the civil law of Rome. The answer is, the idea of Roman civil law is bogus because Rome was always under the god Mars, i.e., Martial law and was always a military state in which the Roman Legions were used to expand and maintain control of Rome's insatiable commercial appetite.

We find today, a vast number of parallels between the old Roman codes, of which, only a few are mentioned below.

First, there is novation, from the Latin, novatio. This concept did not exist in American law before Lincoln's War Against the States.

Novation is the extinguishment of a prior debt by a new debt obligation. Today, this is done by a birth certificate when a baby's foot is placed thereon - before it touches the land.

The certificate is then recorded at a County Recorder, sent to the Secretary of State in the State where the baby is born, exported to the Department of Commerce, and Bureau of Census and the process of converting a man's life, labor, and property to an asset of the UNITED STATES government is in place.

(Ever wonder how the government can be so deeply in debt and still remain solvent? You're the collateral!) Novation is not complete until the child -- as adult -- voluntarily assents to being a debtor, by submitting an application for a benefit, privilege, immunity, or opportunity from any branch of martial law agency.

It does not matter whether it's The Department of Motor Vehicles or The Social Security Administration, the effect is the same. Novation converts a baby's life, liberty, labor, and property, to an asset of the UNITED STATES, a Federal Corporation, and converts flesh and blood man or woman, created under substantive Law by God, to a persona, i.e., a fiction.

One is now living collateral for the debts of the UNITED STATES corporation, who has entered into commerce for some benefit, privilege, etc., from an imperial power, regulated by military law that benefits bondholders of the debt of the corporation.

Third, the persona, as a fiction, cannot think, speak, hear, write, and thus an advocatus, an attorney, is called in to speak for the persona.

Fourth, Roman law is the basis of all International and Municipal law, forms the core of the United Nations law, and all treaties made by the UNITED STATES with foreign powers.

Fifth, the lex mercatoria, the law of merchants and commerce is based on Roman law where the god of merchants and commerce, Mercury, presided, who is, the god of traders and thieves.

Sixth, all modern federal and state law appears in the form of codes patterned after the Code of Justinian, often following it, at places, exactly!

Thus, Roman law served all the need of those who opposed Constitutional law. It installed the force and power of the military; it already existed as a complete body of law; it was fully commercial; and, it was clearly the only real substitute for the Law of God and the common law.

Hail Caesar!!!

reply to post by I_am_Spartacus


Hows that for campaign reform. hahaha. I Like it, although maybe a bit harsh. Perhaps we could do something like local governments with smaller elections and then for the "Jury Duty" portion of Congress we select from those few somewhat qualified individuals. That way we don't get the Billy-Bob's and their shotguns voting to legalize four-wheeled destruction of national landmarks because it would be fun! haha.

Still we will keep out the lobbyists. :-)

Proto, you misconstrued the truth and lied about it, and continue to lie about it. If you want to have a debate or discussion on what we can change or fix about our government fine, but the facts are on my side and I hope the other bloggers will verify what I have said. My brother, GetReadyAlready, can verify that I only joined this forum, at first, to disprove or verify claims by the bloggers. I started doing that and started getting interested in many of the blogs. I still verify or debunk before I ever begin making claims or arguing with the bloggers. In this case you are the spreader of untruths, and you should just stop now before you lose all credibility with not only me but the other readers of this thread.

Hmmm...I'm still waiting for a rebuttal on the 1/2 vs 2/3 issues...

Did an unlawful Congress revise this, without mentioning this, in the annuls of law or did I miss something?

Originally posted by Hx3_1963
reply to post by EnlightenUp

 

Are you referring to how the original rights of confederation 9based upon the Magna Charter...giving average people rights under the King) were based upon god's law/common laws and fashioned after separate branches of religion divided into branches of Government?

I was referring to the paper linked on scribd.com -- The United States - The New Roman Empire.

I noticed nothing about *gays* per say...perhaps you could enlighten us where you've drawn this reference...

Introduction

The people of America are concerned that "something is wrong". Most of us Americans know something is indeed wrong, but fail in the attempt to put a finger on it. I believe that I have found the answer.

Let us look upon our society today. We have rampant crime, drugs, lawlessness, a gay agenda, occults, Satan worship in full view!

(what's an occults?)

In regards to Government & Religion...

I believe our Fore-Father were God fearing men and wanted to instill morals in the new Nation...

Then you really do not understand who they were. I see no evidence they had anything remotely resembling ascetic morals. They were occultists through and through and did not want the stuffy oppressivness of dogmatic religion running their lives, though they respected the right for the individual to choose that path. They believe in a higher power, as do I, however, one where self-realization and God realization are not separate. If you understood what Masonry was about, you would appreciate its true influence and agenda for America and the world, which has been twisted, mangled and distorted into conspiracy theories of world enslavement to serve the would be oppressors' agendas. They were not Bible thumping evangelicals, not by a long shot.

They weren't trying to "instill" morals but wake people up to their true selves. Starting this nation was an attempt to break the old paradigms of oppression and control so that such a thing was possible. Otherwise, I don't think we'd be having this conversion, except in secret alchemical code or the like.

To bad it's poor etiquette to display the 10 Commandments anymore...anyone notice that *flap*?

Display them on your property if you like. I have no problem with that.

Originally posted by EnlightenUp
[
Then you really do not understand who they were. I see no evidence they had anything remotely resembling ascetic morals. They were occultists through and through and did not want the stuffy oppressivness of dogmatic religion running their lives, though they respected the right for the individual to choose that path. They believe in a higher power, as do I, however, one where self-realization and God realization are not separate. If you understood what Masonry was about, you would appreciate its true influence and agenda for America and the world, which has been twisted, mangled and distorted into conspiracy theories of world enslavement to serve the would be oppressors' agendas. They were not Bible thumping evangelicals, not by a long shot.

They weren't trying to "instill" morals but wake people up to their true selves. Starting this nation was an attempt to break the old paradigms of oppression and control so that such a thing was possible. Otherwise, I don't think we'd be having this conversion, except in secret alchemical code or the like.

Reasonably well stated. I bit harsh I would say, but you got the point across I think. haha.

Originally posted by Hx3_1963
Hmmm...I'm still waiting for a rebuttal on the 1/2 vs 2/3 issues...

Did an unlawful Congress revise this, without mentioning this, in the annuls of law or did I miss something?

You will have to be more specific. There was discussion of how much a slave would be worth in 1787, including 1/2 and 2/3, and I think the Aricles of Confederation even addressed that, but they settled on 3/5 of a man in the final draft of the Constitution. This was null and void once a state agreed to the 13th amendment.

Is that what you are referring to?

reply to post by memarf1
I was referring to the "Quorum" mentioned before...

Was it 1/2 or 2/3 and of what?

1/2 or 2/3 of the States before succession or 1/2 or 2/3 of the States after succession?

Makes a big difference...

And as for the Religious angles...

Constitutional Topic: The Constitution and Religion
www.usconstitution.net...

~
The First Amendment

The Framers thought that they had constructed a very complete and comprehensive document. But many people disagreed, and though the opposition had many issues with the Constitution, they focused on one in particular: the lack of a bill of rights.

Almost all of the state constitutions contained bills of rights — rights that the people of the states were guaranteed to enjoy regardless of any law or rule to the contrary. The supporters of the Constitution felt that a bill of rights was unneeded at best, because the federal government was not allowed to legislate on issues it had no direct mandate to do so, and dangerous at worst, because a list of rights could necessarily limit the rights of the people.

In the end, many supporters of the Constitution, including one of the most prominent, James Madison, agreed to support a bill of rights in the Constitution, if it could be ratified. Several of the states included suggested amendments, including rights of the people, in their ratification documents. The push was on for a bill of rights in the Constitution. Madison was true to his word — on June 8, 1789, Representative James Madison rose and gave a speech in the House where he introduced a series of articles of amendment. One concerned religious freedom:

The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.

Madison's proposal follows the proposals of some of the states. New Hampshire's read:

Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or to infringe the rights of conscience.

Virginia was much more verbose:

That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence, and therefore all men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience, and that no particular sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.

New Yorkers had the same to say, but more succinctly:

That the people have an equal, natural, and unalienable right freely and peaceably to exercise their religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.

Aside from New Hampshire's wide-reaching "no touch" proposal, all of these have a few elements in common. First, no national religion should be established, in contrast to several European nations of the time (and to this day) which have an official state church. Second, that no one sect of any religion be favored by the government. Third, that all persons should be free to worship in whatever manner they deemed appropriate for them.

Through the debate, Senate, and conference committees, the wording of all of these proposals was whittled down to the religion clauses of what is our 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

God in the State Constitutions
www.usconstitution.net...

And for more introspective research on all matters involved...

Articles of Confederation
en.wikipedia.org...

United States Constitution
en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 9/22/2009 by Hx3_1963]

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Latin Legal Words have very precise legal meanings, how Wikipedia interpets them mean nothing. They use Latin Legal Words because they have precise legal meanings that only people who understand Latin understand so everyone else can be given a Wikipedia version that has no meaning.

The above quote is from another one of Your posts. It rang true; as Satanist Albert Pike would have written,"brighter than the morning star!"

Your absolutely correct. In recent modern time We've flown through the different Black's Law Dictionary volumes quicker than a runny nose. This is one of the most, if not the most sited legal dictionaries in print. Now You can take one of the older versions, and a defined word, and compare it to a recent addition with the same word.................Guess what??? 1000% difference between the meanings of the word.

Now which ever law written 100 years ago was obviously using the older version, or definition of the word, but modern "esquires" would convince anyone to use a modern Black's for the definition.............................. That's how they distort; they are literally changing the nuts, and bolts defining the very fabric of documents........... Really quite evil.

Also, I believe that around the time of Lincoln's takeover is when permanent "policy enforcer's" were placed on the streets..............Oh, these policy enforcer's are commonly known as Police.

It really just flat out sucks when People have no clues at all what the real issues are in the World. I will make no claim that I do know them like the back of my hand, and at the same time I will sit back to observe when I am learning the truth.