Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0

Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0

Coffees from Youngevity

Coffees from Youngevity

Youngevity Be The Change

Youngevity Healthy Chocolate

GOFoods Youngevity

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.

Ron Paul Forums

Ron Paul Forums

APFN Message Board

APFN Message Board

Leo Emil Wanta / Wantagate Links

++++++++++++++++++ EBAY ITEMS 4 SALE ++++++++++++++++++

« Republican Liberty Caucus Endorses Ron Paul for President 2012 | Main | Ron Paul - Many people who read this post / watch this video change their vote »

Private Attorney General Confronts Racists in CONgress openly criticizing their institutional bias- "Bring 'em on!"

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <>
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2011 12:05 PM
Private Attorney General Confronts Racists in CONgress
-- "Bring 'em on!" he openly criticizes their institutional bias.

The Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford was correct,
not because it upheld apartheid, when the writing was already on the wall
and Abraham Lincoln refused to read that writing!

That was not Lincoln's finest hour -- hardly!

It was correct because that decision identified the organic Constitution
as the real culprit, and because it also explained sufficiently and thoroughly that
THE PROBLEM thus identified was in the organic Constitution and
the Supreme Court had no authority to amend that Constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court still has no such authority.  See Article V:
(that Article has never been amended either!)

Nevertheless, rather than heed the Supreme Court's sage advice
at that time -- to amend the Constitution properly -- CONgress instead
created a second INFERIOR class of "federal citizens" specifically
to give blacks a terrible choice:  either become SUBJECTS of D.C.
or go back to Africa, even though many blacks at that time had been
born in America:

Not only was the 1866 Civil Rights Act a terrible insult to all black Americans;
it fails the Void for Vagueness test because "United States" has three (3) --
COUNT THEM -- three different legal meanings.  Which of those 3 meanings
the CONgress intended when it designated them "citizens of the United States"
was allowed to remain entirely vague, until recent research blew the
cover off this multi-generational fraud:

To make matters much worse, federal citizens are now the
ONLY CLASS of Americans who can vote or serve on juries of any kind,
be they Federal or State juries, be they grand juries or trial juries,
be they civil juries or criminal juries.

If you are a State Citizen -- read Citizen of ONE OF the States united --
you are eligible to serve in the House, Senate and White House, BUT
you are expressly and totally EXCLUDED from participating otherwise
in the American democratic experiment.

So much for "Democracy in America" -- one of THE BIGGEST LIES if there ever was one.

Here's an IQ test which our office has devised for all Federal lawmakers:
ask them this:  What are the first three letters of "CONgress"?

Con  verb  to swindle (The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, paperback edition)

As Mark Twain once wrote:  "The only time the children are safe
is when CONgress is not in session."
  (Not his "real" name, by the way :)

Bring 'em on, I say:  their knowledge of American history and
American laws never repealed is so empty, so vacuous,
my little finger can push over their entire "white collar" crime syndicate
in one brief wink.

p.s.  Guess what "U.S. Individual" means on IRS Form 1040?
Answer:  that term includes ONLY federal citizens and resident aliens:  (Meaning of “United States person”)


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964 (Home Page) (Support Policy) (Client Guidelines) (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

December 31, 2011 in Current Affairs | Permalink