« December 2009 | Main | February 2010 »
Ron Paul's State of the Republic Address / Money bomb starts tonight at midnight
Posted: 04 Nov 2009 06:06 PM PST
The ThisNovember5th.com money bomb starts tonight at midnight EST.
Please visit www.ThisNovember5th.com for a full listing of candidates. All contributions are to be made directly at the candidate websites.
There will be a live broadcast from Orange County, CA from 7:00pm to 8:00 PST. Click for more details:
http://www.
Please forward this message and spread the word.
Thank you.
Trevor Lyman
January 31, 2010 in Current Affairs | Permalink
[ V I D E O ] REALITY REPORT 29 - The State of the Union Response
Yours in Truth!
Gary Franchi
P.S. Download this show to burn to DVD for broadcast on your local public access station.
January 29, 2010 in Current Affairs | Permalink
GM Corn Shown to Cause Organ Failure
Hi Juan,
I just read a very apt description of genetically-modified (GM) vegetables: Frankenfood.
But what's scariest about GM crops is not simply that they are
manipulating DNA, but that they are not testing it before they sell it
to the public to be consumed!
Tell the FDA to take GM corn off the market until a 2-year study is done. >>
A recent study published in the International Journal of Biological
Sciences has shown that three GM corn crops produced by Monsanto caused
kidney and liver damage as well as some heart, adrenal, spleen and
blood damage in rats.
This is some of the first news about this type of study because
it is one of the first. The FDA allowed Monsanto to simply re-assure
them that the foods were safe, and they were put on the market. Now we
see that these foods are potentially hazardous to our health. This is a
disgrace!
The FDA is putting the American people at risk. Tell them to put safety over profits. Act now! >>
Thank you for standing up for what's right.
|
|
Sincerely, Emily Care2 and ThePetitionSite Team |
January 29, 2010 in Current Affairs | Permalink
Vote Ron Paul: News Update 1-29-2010
47 W. Polk St. Suite 100-408, Chicago, IL 60605
January 29, 2010 in Current Affairs | Permalink
Re: Private Attorney General comments re: "States Can Tell Feds to Shove It," by Sheriff Richard Mack (Ret.) (1/25/2010)
Many thanks, Robert, for your kind words below ...See also my recent exchange with author Michael LeMieux
on this very same subject:
http://www.newswithviews.com/
Date: Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 6:59 AM
Subject: Re: constitutiondenied.com-Form Submission
To: Michael LeMieux <author@constitutiondenied.
Cc: SupremeLaw <supremelaw@googlegroups.com>
Many thanks, Michael.
You have entered into a discussion of what we believe is one of THE most important frauds ever to originate in the CON-gress of the United States.
[IQ Test for Senators and Representatives: What are the first three letters of "Congress"?]
Just a few more points to help clarify -- and synchronize -- the debate on this all important issue:
(1) "Citizen" is consistently spelled with an UPPER-CASE "C" in the organic (organizing) version of the U.S. Constitution, before the Bill of Rights was ratified:
http://www.supremelaw.org/
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/
(2) "citizen" is consistently spelled with a lower-case "c" in the 1866 Civil Rights Act and in the so-called 14th amendment [sic]:
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/
(3) the problem identified in the Dred Scott decision could have been easily rectified, as directed by Chief Justice Taney, by amending the Constitution
as follows:
"The status of Citizen of one of the United States of America shall not be denied, or abridged, by the United States or by any State, on account of race."
This qualifier -- one of -- also occurs in key places in the historical record e.g.:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/
(4) note the careful wording above, which clearly intends to distinguish "United States of America" from "United States": this distinction is maintained in Federal statutes even today; [however] the term "United States" in those Qualifications Clauses means "States united": People v. De La Guerra; see also 28 U.S.C. 1746:
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/
http://www.law.cornell.edu/
(latter is the ONLY place in Title 28 where "USA" occurs)
(5) even if it had been properly ratified -- which it was NOT -- Courts have ruled that the so-called Fourteenth amendment was merely declaratory of existing law -- that "existing law" being the 1866 Civil Rights Act;
(6) that Act is demonstrably void for vagueness for attempting to confuse "Citizens" and "citizens", and by failing to define "United States" as it should have been defined -- i.e. to refer to Congress acting in its capacity as the Legislature for the federal zone, where Congress has EXCLUSIVE legislative jurisdiction: (7) as such, even if it is constitutional (which is entirely doubtful), the 1866 Civil Rights Act was, and still is, Federal MUNICIPAL law, limited in its territorial reach to D.C., Federal Territories and Possessions, and all Federal enclaves, but NOT within any of the several (now 50) States of the Union;
(8) the existence of two (2) classes of citizens can even be inferred from the very language of the so-called Fourteenth amendment: note well that a second "privileges and immunities" clause would NOT have been required if State Citizenship had been conferred upon all black slaves freed by the Thirteenth Amendment, because as State Citizens they would have been automatically protected by the organic Privileges and Immunities Clause [4:2:1]:
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/
(9) the real (dead?) giveaway in the so-called Fourteenth amendment is Section 4: the validity of the public debt shall not be questioned: WHAT DID THAT HAVE TO DO WITH CONFERRING CITIZENSHIP OF EITHER CLASS UPON FREED BLACKS? ANSWER: NOTHING!!
http://www.supremelaw.org/
(only one error [I could find] in this essay: "USA" is not a corporation)
(10) when all is said and done, the vague term "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in Section 1 means "subject to the MUNICIPAL jurisdiction of the Congress":
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/
Conclusions: both the 1866 Civil Rights Act and the so-called Fourteenth amendment were unconstitutional ab initio. Unconstitutionality dates from the moment of enactment, not from any decision so branding the Acts in question:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/
In order to have 27 states ratify the Fourteenth Amendment,
it was necessary to count those states which had first rejected
and then under the duress of military occupation had ratified,
and then also to count those states which initially ratified but
subsequently rejected the proposal.
To leave such dishonest counting to a fractional part of
Congress is dangerous in the extreme. What is to prevent any
political party having control of both houses of Congress from
refusing to seat the opposition and then without more passing a
joint resolution to the effect that the Constitution is amended
and that it is the duty of the Administrator of the General
Services Administration (7) to proclaim the adoption? Would the
Supreme Court of the United States still say the problem was
political and refuse to determine whether constitutional
standards had been met?How can it be conceived in the minds of anyone that a
combination of powerful states can by force of arms deny another
state a right to have representation in Congress until it has
ratified an amendment which its people oppose? The Fourteenth
Amendment was adopted by means almost as bad as that suggested
above.http://www.supremelaw.org/
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be[,] had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it ....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13
http://www.supremelaw.org/
http://www.supremelaw.org/
http://www.supremelaw.org/
http://www.supremelaw.org/
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
___
From: Robert-Garvin: Moore <robertgarvin@prodigy.net>
To: paulandrewmitchell2004@yahoo.
Sent: Wed, January 27, 2010 1:56:42 PM
Subject: Private Attorney General comments re: "States Can Tell Feds to Shove It," by Sheriff Richard Mack (Ret.) (1/25/2010)
Excellent job Paul!
//Robert//
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Paul Andrew
Mitchell <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
To: sheriffmack@hotmail.com
Cc: Henry Makow <henry@savethemales.ca>; SupremeLaw
<supremelaw@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tue, January 26, 2010 8:59:28 AM
Subject: Private Attorney General comments re: "States Can Tell
Feds to Shove It," by Sheriff Richard Mack (Ret.) (1/25/2010)
http://www.henrymakow.com/the_
Greetings Richard and Henry:
I do appreciate the positive sentiments and pertinent authorities which you
documented in this recent essay entitled "States Can Tell Feds to Shove it".
Congratulations! I believe that all Americans need to study that
excellent piece.
I do wish you had taken the next step after citing Article I, Section 8: the Clause at 1:8:17 is a very important key to understanding why the Republic is devolved into near extinction, of late:
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/
("exclusive" here means no State jurisdiction whatsoever)
And, this key Clause is THE reason why D.C. cannot join the Union without a Constitutional Amendment expressly permitting it to do so.
If you will take the time to review the articles we have authored and assembled concerning the failed Fourteenth amendment [sic] and the ugly legal consequences of its historical aftermath, it shouldn't be too difficult for men of your intelligence to see how all of the following have served to empower the Feds and to dis-empower the States and their Citizens (UPPER-CASE "C"):
(1) federal citizenship is a Federal MUNICIPAL franchise domiciled in D.C.;
(2) there was only one class of State Citizens prior to the Civil War,
and thus prior to 1866;
(3) the 1866 Civil Rights Act originally created federal citizenship, and it too was Federal MUNICIPAL law: it could not and did not amend any of the Qualifications Clauses which mention State Citizens ONLY; in point of fact, those Clauses have never been amended;
(4) similarly, the "Citizens" mentioned in the Arising
Under Clause and in the Privileges and Immunities Clause were likewise State Citizens ONLY (there was only one class of State Citizens between 1788 and 1866);
(5) without belaboring any of the other important historical details, it is now clear that the population of federal citizens who inhabit the 50 States are an absolute legislative democracy that is domiciled in
D.C.;
(6) federal citizens owe their allegiance to a jurisdiction which is not protected by the Guarantee Clause; strictly construed as it should be, that Guarantee Clause only guarantees a Republic Form of Government to the 50 States, NOT to the "United States" (federal government) read
"D.C.";
(7) the consequences of this fraudulent scheme have been numerous, far-reaching and long-lasting, e.g.:
(a) presently only federal citizens can vote and serve on juries, whether grand juries or trial juries, whether criminal or civil juries;
(b) only State Citizens can serve in the House, Senate or White House
(remember here: the Qualifications Clauses have never been amended: as such, they retain today the meaning they had when they were first ratified on June 21, 1788 -- my birthday, by the way :)
(c) therefore, those who are qualified to be federal lawmakers cannot vote or serve on any juries -- State or federal, civil or
criminal, grand or petit juries!
(d) those who are eligible to vote and serve on juries are not qualified to be federal lawmakers [or to serve in the White House];
(8) this obviously twisted situation has already been well documented in litigation, e.g. see these documents, for starters:
http://www.supremelaw.org/
http://www.supremelaw.org/
http://www.supremelaw.org/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/
http://www.supremelaw.org/
http://www.supremelaw.org/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/
http://www.supremelaw.org/
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/
Now you know why the Feds persist in harping on "democracy in
America": in doing so, they are using false propaganda to perpetuate a majority of federal citizens who presently populate the 50 States, while doing everything within their power to ignore the State Citizens who also inhabit those same 50 States.
Keep up the good work!
--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/
http://www.supremelaw.org/
http://www.supremelaw.org/
http://www.supremelaw.org/
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
January 28, 2010 in Current Affairs | Permalink
Freedom Watch
FREEDOM WATCH is information pertaining to
government abuse of power, trashing of
the Constitution, illegal immigration,
2nd Amendment, political correctness
run amok, etc.
It is FREE and sent to you via E-mail.
To subscribe send an e-mail to:
FreedomWatch-subscribe@topica.com
FREEDOM WATCH
http://fwatch.blogspot.com/
***********************
The State of the Nation: I am afraid
By John W. Whitehead
The Rutherford Institute
http://www.rutherford.org/
Judicial Watch Announces List of Washington's "Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians" for 2009
http://www.judicialwatch.org/
Girl forced to get swine-flu shot despite objections
Irate dad: 'My daughter said no and they didn't bother to contact me or my wife'
--San Diego Union-Tribune
http://www.signonsandiego.com/
Killer way to slay the Google beast!
'They're telling us they will turn data over to the feds'
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?
January 28, 2010 in Current Affairs | Permalink
Matthew Falconer for Orange County Mayor: Mortgaging our children's future
With our nation debt approaching $12 trillion, our government continues to spend money as if we do not have to pay it back.
My opponents, Bill Segal and Linda Stewart, where there applauding this reckless spending and mounting debt. Teresa Pelosi Jacobs and Mildred Fernandez both support unfunded rail projects. They have not figured out how we will pay for commuter rail and they are celebrating a new multi-billion dollar government project.
I pledge not to waste taxpayer money and put our children further into debt.
by logging onto http://www.matthewfalconer.
Matthew Falconer
www.MatthewFalconer.com
Matthew@MatthewFalconer.com
January 28, 2010 in Current Affairs | Permalink
Vote Ron Paul: News Update 1-28-2009
47 W. Polk St. Suite 100-408, Chicago, IL 60605
January 28, 2010 in Current Affairs | Permalink
TRAFFIC v. DRIVING Eddie Craig tells it again!!!! TELECONFERENCE CALL - Thursday - TONIGHT
Public Service Announcement:THIS T H U R S D A Y CALL
CONFERENCE CALL
This call is going to touch on the NEW Common Law Course in addition to the 'pearls of wisdom' that flow from Eddie Craig.
So, if you want to learn how you can accomplish this Offensive Posture for yourself, listen to and participate in the Free Tele-Conference Calls most every evening of the week. See the ‘Free Tele-Conferences’ TAB at www.YourRemedyIsInTheLaw.com. There are also the Archives to view two years of historical conference calls!
I also encourage you to purchase the 24 hour JurisDictionary Course found at the products and services page at www.YourRemedyIsInTheLaw.com. This course is the absolute minimum entry level for anyone who is anticipating having to deal with a lawful issue. It will be the best 24 hours you have ever spent! I have heard it said this course, when completely understood by you, could put you on par with 85% of the lawyers you may come across.
The Phone Numbers and Pins
are published at http://www.
I encourage you to call in to this night's free tele-conference call with Randy Kelton.
Best regards,
MEJanuary 28, 2010 in Current Affairs | Permalink
Matthew Falconer for Orange County Mayor: A Call to Action
FUN, FUN, FUN... POLITICAL THERAPY ... FUN, FUN, FUN
On Saturday, January 30th, the Matthew Falconer for Orange County Mayor campaign will have its first precinct walk of the year. We will meet at 9:00am at the following address:
2747 Prince John Road
Winter Park, FL 32792
(Dan Wall's house, near the intersection of 436 (Semoran Blvd) and University Blvd.
Google map is here →
http://bit.ly/8XikLkOur agenda will be as follows:
9:00a.m. - Check-in and Volunteer registration
9:15a.m. - Campaign update from Matthew Falconer
9:30a.m. - Training: "Precinct Walking 101"
10:00a.m. - Leave for Walk
Upon return: Light lunch & Volunteer feedback
To help us in our planning efforts, please RSVP to Scott Olver at: Scott@MatthewFalconer.com and review the FAQ below.
I look forward to seeing you Saturday!
Scott Olver
Campaign Manager
FAQ:
What should I wear?
We want you to be comfortable. Please wear comfortable clothing including comfortable walking shoes. Everyone will receive a Matthew Falconer for Orange County Mayor t-shirt that we will all be wearing during the walk. Please do not wear any other political buttons, hats or clothing.
Will there be anything to eat or drink?
Coffee, juice, and doughnuts will be provided during check-in. We'll also have bottled water to keep you hydrated during the walk. Upon returning from the walk, a light lunch will be served.
Please forward to all of your friends and consider a donation to our campaign
by logging onto http://www.matthewfalconer.
Matthew Falconer
www.MatthewFalconer.com
Matthew@MatthewFalconer.com
January 27, 2010 in Current Affairs | Permalink
