It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Rockerchic4God
This girl did a YouTube video last summer, claiming she was a member of the military and had inside information. Her assertion at that time was that the military was getting emergency training and told to be ready for "October orders" to impose martial law and outfit everyone with a H1N1 vaccination bracelet because of the pandemic. Obviously, that did not happen so logically I don't think she's credible.
Originally posted by hawkiye
I think you are confused, this is not secession it is restoration of lawful government. However having said that I would not be surprised if it turns into a civil war once the socialist realize they can't steal from the producers anymore under color of law.
By the way the civil war was unlawful also as Lincoln had no authority to wage war on the south.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
In most respects the Confederate constitution was "a carbon copy of the U.S. Constitution," he said. "It's very odd that states driven to the extremity of succession adopt the same language they are rebelling against. So, it's not that they objected to a strong central government, they just wanted to run it for themselves.
"Jefferson Davis said that the South did not object to the Constitution, but to the way it had been 'perverted by northern interpretation'. [The Confederates] said they wanted to go back to their original interpretation and they want to prevent wrong interpretations from recurring."
The original inhabitants of the United States were not called citizens, which denotes a term of ownership and compulsion by the state, but were called freemen and freeholders. And it shall be the practice of the Confederate States, in acknowldeging the sovereignty of the individual person, to refer to what other countries would call citizens, as sovereign freemen. The status of sovereign freeman in the Confederate States of America shall at the current time, be open to those legally and lawfully residing in the original Thirteeen States of the Confederacy and its territories or Maryland, as of January 1, 2000, to those legally and lawfully residing in a State, Commonwealth, Nation, Republic, Province or Territory at the time of its ratification of this Constitution according to the entity's boundaries at admission, those having descent or lineage from the original Thirteen States of the Confederacy and its territories or Maryland, those born within the territory of a State, Commonwealth, Nation, Republic, Province or Territory which shall ratify this Constitution, and those swearing an oath to the Confederate States or one of the several states. A single Confederate state may not deny sovereign freemanship to a resident sovereign freeman of the Confederate States, but every state may grant state freemanship to persons who are not Confederate citizens as they shall so by law include; except that no person having waged war against the Confederate States shall be eligible for Confederate States sovereign freemanship.
Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Just a note to the "God Squad" alarm raisers on this thread:
Christians founded this country, much to your dismay. And it may well take Christians to save it again from the grubby hands of greed and evil. Because the rest of you don't seem to be doing jack do do towards that end.
Hamilton, for example, was an agnostic and deist for most of his life, who regarded attendance at Episcopal services as a social obligation rather than a devotional occasion. At the Constitutional Convention, when Franklin (of all people) proposed that the delegates invite a minister to bless their deliberations with a prayer, Hamilton observed that “I see no reason to call in foreign aid.” But in the last few years of his life, after his eldest son was killed in a duel defending his father’s honor, Hamilton became much more devoutly Christian, a decision that probably led to his death on the plains of Weehawken when he chose to waste his shot at Aaron Burr.
Jefferson was generally regarded as an atheist by most New England clergy and newspaper editors. (The president of Yale College once threatened to revoke the degree of any Yale graduate who voted for that man from Monticello.) In response to these attacks Jefferson prepared his own edition of the New Testament (still on sale at Monticello). But his correspondence with British Unitarians at the time clearly shows that Jefferson did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, but rather regarded him (or Him) as a wonderful role model, much like Socrates.
Adams began as a Congregationalist, though a staunch opponent of New Light evangelicalism, then ended up a Unitarian. His endorsement of a religious establishment in Massachusetts was rooted in political rather than religious convictions, a conservative belief that social change was always best when done gradually. In the famous correspondence with Jefferson in their twilight years, both men envisioned heaven as a place where they could continue their argument about the true meaning of the American Revolution and Adams could accost Benjamin Franklin for his depravities and inflated reputation. On the question of life everlasting Adams embraced a version of Pascal’s Wager. To wit, one might as well presume it is true, because if it proves incorrect one will never know it. Again, the Adams view of Christian doctrine about everlasting life was always driven by concerns about its function as a brake on human crime and misbehavior. “If it can ever be proved,” he noted near the end, “that there is no life ever-after, my advice to every man, woman, and child would be to take opium.”
As Michael has noted, George Washington always believed that American victory in the War for Independence was, as he said, “a standing miracle,” guided by other-worldly forces that he referred to as “providence” or “destiny.” He seldom used the word “God.” I regard him as a pantheist rather than a deist because he believed these other-worldly forces, whatever we called them, had earthly presences. Like Hamilton, he regarded his attendance at Episcopal services as a social obligation. In his last hours no ministers or chaplains were invited to his bedside. He died as a Roman stoic more than a Christian believer.
Two final points. The common conviction that bound together most of the Founders was the belief in the complete separation of church and state. As products of the Enlightenment, they shared Diderot’s vision of a heavenly city on earth where the last priest would be strangled with the entrails of the last king. This was a radical doctrine at the time, and even now in Iraq we can see that it is an idea yet to be regarded as, shall we say, self-evident. Let me acknowledge that it was easier to implement in the United States than elsewhere, because the vast majority of the populace were practicing Christians of various denominations that shared core values, and also because there was a century-old tradition of religious toleration generated by the multiplicity of sects. That said, it seems to me that the central legacy of the Founding Fathers was a “hands off” policy towards any specific religious doctrine. No faith was to be favored.
Originally posted by theyreadmymind
I too have a theory. It has to do with the letter I posted on page 10 from Mike Di Cosola to Sam Kennedy. Mike mentions that part of the process is that he and the rest of the Illinois county assembly are being "inducted", that is to say inducted as civilians into the military.
Also, these de jeur grand juries they are filling were supposedly vacated and abandoned when the U.S. became a corporation and they believe these seats trump any court in the country.
So what if these Elders define military as these guys who were inducted into their military and they define these de jeur grand juries they put together in all 50 states as the supreme (highest) court. Now they can say they have the full backing of the military and the supreme court like they have been telling people in their interviews and e-mails.
I'm thinking they might not be talking about the entities as we've all come to understand them at all. Even their own members/followers might not understand that they are the ones being referred to.
Friends,
This is perhaps my last email concerning this. I don't know if I'll be at the meeting Monday or not. Personal things are coming to a head in my life that need to be attended to. If I do come it may be the last time for a while.
So I wanted to give my findings and thoughts on the whole TRAP thing. One thing that was staring us in the face and I missed was the meaning of words in particular:
Blacks law De Luxe Fourth Edition,
Guardian:
"A guardian is a person lawfully invested with with the power and charged with the duty, of taking care of the person and managing the property and rights of another person, who, for some peculiarity of status, or defect of age, understanding, or self control, is considered incapable of administering his own affairs. Bass v, Cook, 4 Port., Ala., 392; Sparhawk v. Alien, 21 N. H. 27; Burger v. Frakes, 67 Iowa, 460, 23 N.W. 746 Fleming v. Leibe, 5 N.J. Eq. 129, 122 A. 616.
One who legally has care and management of the person, or estate, or both, of a child during its minority. reeve, Dom. Rel. 311
The term might be appropriately used to designate the person charged with the care and control of idiots, lunitics, habitual drunkards, spendthrifts, and the like; but such person is under many of the statutory systems authorizing the appointment, styled "committee," and in common usage the name "guardian" is applied only to one having the care and management of a minor."
So which one are you a lunatic or a minor?
Don't ever sign anything that even insinuates someone as guardian...
Also take note how it delineates lawful from legal
The whole idea that grand juries would be "guardians" of the free republics is a contradictions in terms in light of this. The republics are no longer free if they have "guardians". And the four "guardian elders" hmmm, POA indeed!
Well lets look up Elder:
Ok the exact word is not there but "Elder Title" is there and it reads:
"A title of earlier date, but coming simultaneously into operation with a title of younger origin, is called the "elder title" and prevails."
Prevails? hmmmm
A few more thoughts and these are based on TRAP website since there is some question as to if the documents presented will be used or are a just a draft that is not done yet:
These are from their goals page of their website:
" foreclosure and bank collection actions immediately (our first and seventh directives)"
As much as I agree with this sentiment this will collapse the banks the dollar and the economy. This has to be done in a slow and measured manner it cannot b done immediately as they state.
"Ending taxes immediately (second and sixth directives)"
As good as this sounds this will collapse all local, state, and the federal governments. While I agree they need to go in their current form, again this needs to be done in a slow measured manner over time so the people on Social security and medicare and government workers are not left out in the cold.
"Re-absorption of the de facto judicial aberrations such as USDC into the de jure institutions (Phase 2, thirteenth through fifteenth directives)
a PERMANENT TERMINATION OF TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT OUTSIDE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS"
This will be seen as a hostile takeover of the corporation and an act of war. Words mean things; word like Re-absorption and Termination
"Restoration of the common law of the Land (third and eighth directives)"
Define common law it can mean British law of commons etc. Again words mean things
As I have said and illustrated above words means things!
Also one must ask how do they plan to accomplish this? They make lots of claims of what they want to do but give no means as to how and apparently no regard to the consequences. The assemblies simply wish to coexist and let people choose for themselves.
Also one must ask what lawful authorities is any of their actions pursuant to? The Assembly decree plainly states the organic documents its authority is pursuant to.
Next thing is military support. No one questions the need. However there is no evidence that they have military support as claimed! This is from their introduction page:
"The four step Restore America Plan was proposed by high-ranking members of the military "
Yet Sam K stated on his call (recorded) the military had not seen their plan yet but had agreed to take orders from them.
Also what civilian structure is in place to give the military orders in their plan? Nothing! Grand juries have never been a body politic in history they are a function of the judicial. So that leaves who to give the military orders? Why the Guardians of course. They would have complete control just as the word "Guardian" denotes. Do you wish to be their ward?
Also on the Sam K Radio broadcasts of which their are recordings Sam K has mentioned the North American Continent and the 52 free republics. Excuse me who are the other two? Canada, Mexico? And the United States of America does not encompass the entire continent. This smacks of the North American Union.
Also on his broadcast he has stated that he wants to forgive and leave in place if they repent the criminals and tyrants of the corporate machine who have been the instrument of oppression without which the machine could not function and expect them to just do the right things. Has that ever happened in the history of the world? These criminals have no clue how to function on the republic and stop oppressing people.
IMO the use of the word "Guardian" and its legal definition is enough to run from this right there but I bring up the rest of the points as they are all important points of why this is dangerous to us all.
I hope the assembly can discuss things Monday in an amicable way, if things get heated then everyone should feel free to raise a point of order to ratchet down the emotions as we are all in this together.
Originally posted by hawkiye
I am posting an email I sent to my local assembly when TRAP divided us. It gives some of the reasons why I did not sign on to it:
Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Just a note to the "God Squad" alarm raisers on this thread:
Christians founded this country, much to your dismay.
Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Because the bottom line is I'd rather live under the hand of God than the hand of the devil, which is what we are under now.
Originally posted by TrueAmerican
There is nothing radically wrong, or radically bible thumping, with TRAP.
Originally posted by TrueAmerican
They aren't calling for another inquisition or anything of the sort. .
Originally posted by MagicaRose
What happened with the phone calls that several people were making to Governors asking about this?
And what is the fear component of this. Others brought up militias earlier. Now you bring up fear, what is that?