HOTT Newslinks September 24, 2008

FBI Opens Probe of Finance Giants

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/23/AR2008092302673.html

++++++++++++++++++++

McCain Aide’s Firm Was Paid by Freddie Mac

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/us/politics/w24davis.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1222267348-an5DKZBV155FYdOimW0T0w

+++++++++++++++++++++++

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26771176/

Russia ordered its main stock exchanges closed for another day Thursday as President Dmitry Medvedev called for pouring $20 billion into financial markets in an effort to stabilize them.

++++++++++++++++++

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSHKG1567720080918

Morgan Stanley topped the list of major financial firms scrambling to find a buyer, while central banks rushed in $180 billion of extra liquidity to bring some calm to panicked stock and money markets.

++++++++++++++++

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring/2008/09/15/mnspeed115.xml

Drivers could have their speed controlled by satellite to stop them from breaking the limit following a Government trial of new technology.
Ah, but there are two problems with this.
The first is technology. The error in location for GPS various quite a bit (depending on the overhead satellite constellation). There will be times when the system cannot determine if the car is on the freeway or on the access road running right alongside it. This means that at some point a car driving on the freeway at 55 will suddenly slow to 35, much to the annoyance of the people following along behind.
Second, there are times when one has good reason to break the speed limit, such as getting a loved one to the hospital in a medical emergency, outrunning the waters from a dam burst, or escaping that meth head who has mistaken you for the guy who dropped a dime on him last week.

+++++++++++++++++++

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080917/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan

The airstrike was likely to further fan anger among Pakistanis over a surge in cross-border operations by U.S. forces that have strained the two countries’ seven-year alliance against terrorist groups.

+++++++++++++++++

http://www.reuters.com/article/email/idUSN1738549020080917

U.S. gold futures rose 8 percent on Wednesday, soaring above $840 an ounce as investors poured into the gold market as a safe haven amid heavy losses in stocks and ongoing financial turmoil, traders said.

++++++++++++++++++++++

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7620528.stm

Trading on Russia’s main stock exchanges has been suspended following steep falls in shares prices this week.

++++++++++++++++++++++

http://www.heathenworld.com/swastika/Default.aspx?s=24

http://www.crystalinks.com/swastika.html

Swastika – the Symbol of Buddha part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3xr7xUlLlo&feature=related

Swastika – the Symbol of Buddha part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJjfkAzLPfM&feature=related

The Power of the Black Sun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qukzYFW1uww&feature=related

++++++++++++++++++

Good Intentions Paved The Road To Subprime-Stoked Meltdown

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=307061229501695

++++++++++++++++++

Interesting test here:

http://barackobamatest.com/

+++++++++++++++++

This is an interesting link talking about Democrat talking points and where they might just come from:

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/where-the-democrats-get-their-talking-points

+++++++++++++++++++

he congress is now talking about the “bail-out” for financial outfits. Notice that the Democrats are all crying , “Save main street not Wall Street”. If it a coincidence that the Communist Party USA has that statement on their web site on the opening page, fourth item from the top? Check it out.

http://www.cpusa.org/

++++++++++++++++++++

This is a microcosm of the macrocosm we call America………
“Research on consumer behavior has been around since marketing began”
“Knowing how to subtly guide choices could have a huge commercial impact”
“The first weeks are not very nice but you get used to it,”
“This is a laboratory. We control all the conditions,”
America is a laboratory……..

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080921/ap_on_re_eu/lunch_in_the_lab

++++++++++++++++++++

“A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation,” Croskey wrote.”
In other words, total subservience to the Big Brother.

http://www.naturalnews.com/024287.html

++++++++++++++++++++

Today, Ms Palin will receive a crash course in international affairs from Henry Kissinger.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24394077-663,00.html

++++++++++++++++++++

“In a sign of how concerned the McCain campaign is about having Ms Palin exposed to unscripted moments with the news media, print reporters were barred from a picture-taking session at the beginning of the Palin-Karzai meeting in Mr Karzai’s hotel suite.”

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24392377-663,00.html

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2008/09/sarah-palin-mee.html

++++++++++++++++++++

“Questions remain, however, as to how secure the system is.”
No one seems to question whether this type of system should or should not be in the hands of Big Brother…..

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/09/precrime-detector-is-showing-p.html

++++++++++++++++++++

“1984 and Minority Report weren’t supposed to be how to manuals.”
…this is one of the comments after the article….and I would ask this person….”how do you know?”

 http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/30835

++++++++++++++++++++

“The city will shut down the tent city as soon as early October because the tents sit on what will be a parking lot for a complex of shelters and services for homeless people.”
If you want to see something grow….subsidize it!
First they come with “services”, then those services come with “suggestions”, and finally they become DICTATES!
Beware government services!

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/09/19/tent.cities.ap/index.html

++++++++++++++++++++
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
“American empire in the world is reaching the end of its road.”
According to Manley Hall….America was founded for an unusual and specific purpose….is it becoming clear what that purpose was?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/09/23/ahmadinejad.us/index.html

++++++++++++++++++++

 They Thought They Were Free  The Germans, 1933-45  Excerpt from pages 166-73 of “They Thought They Were Free” First published in 1955  By Milton Mayer  But Then It Was Too Late  ”What no one seemed to notice,” said a colleague of mine, a philologist, “was the ever widening gap, after 1933, between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know, it doesn’t make people close to their government to be told that this is a people’s government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing, to do with knowing one is governing.  ”What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.  ”This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.  ”You will understand me when I say that my Middle High German was my life. It was all I cared about. I was a scholar, a specialist. Then, suddenly, I was plunged into all the new activity, as the university was drawn into the new situation; meetings, conferences, interviews, ceremonies, and, above all, papers to be filled out, reports, bibliographies, lists, questionnaires. And on top of that were the demands in the community, the things in which one had to, was ‘expected to’ participate that had not been there or had not been important before. It was all rigmarole, of course, but it consumed all one’s energies, coming on top of the work one really wanted to do. You can see how easy it was, then, not to think about fundamental things. One had no time.”  ”Those,” I said, “are the words of my friend the baker. ‘One had no time to think. There was so much going on.’”  ”Your friend the baker was right,” said my colleague. “The dictatorship, and the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting. It provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway. I do not speak of your ‘little men,’ your baker and so on; I speak of my colleagues and myself, learned men, mind you. Most of us did not want to think about fundamental things and never had. There was no need to. Nazism gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about—we were decent people—and kept us so busy with continuous changes and ‘crises’ and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the ‘national enemies,’ without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us. Unconsciously, I suppose, we were grateful. Who wants to think?  ”To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it—please try to believe me—unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’ that no ‘patriotic German’ could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.  ”How is this to be avoided, among ordinary men, even highly educated ordinary men? Frankly, I do not know. I do not see, even now. Many, many times since it all happened I have pondered that pair of great maxims, Principiis obsta and Finem respice—‘Resist the beginnings’ and ‘Consider the end.’ But one must foresee the end in order to resist, or even see, the beginnings. One must foresee the end clearly and certainly and how is this to be done, by ordinary men or even by extraordinary men? Things might have. And everyone counts on that might.  ”Your ‘little men,’ your Nazi friends, were not against National Socialism in principle. Men like me, who were, are the greater offenders, not because we knew better (that would be too much to say) but because we sensed better. Pastor Niemöller spoke for the thousands and thousands of men like me when he spoke (too modestly of himself) and said that, when the Nazis attacked the Communists, he was a little uneasy, but, after all, he was not a Communist, and so he did nothing; and then they attacked the Socialists, and he was a little uneasier, but, still, he was not a Socialist, and he did nothing; and then the schools, the press, the Jews, and so on, and he was always uneasier, but still he did nothing. And then they attacked the Church, and he was a Churchman, and he did something—but then it was too late.”  ”Yes,” I said.  ”You see,” my colleague went on, “one doesn’t see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even talk, alone; you don’t want to ‘go out of your way to make trouble.’ Why not?—Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.  ”Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, ‘everyone’ is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees none. You know, in France or Italy there would be slogans against the government painted on walls and fences; in Germany, outside the great cities, perhaps, there is not even this. In the university community, in your own community, you speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, ‘It’s not so bad’ or ‘You’re seeing things’ or ‘You’re an alarmist.’  ”And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can’t prove it. These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don’t know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end? On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you. On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic. You are left with your close friends, who are, naturally, people who have always thought as you have.  ”But your friends are fewer now. Some have drifted off somewhere or submerged themselves in their work. You no longer see as many as you did at meetings or gatherings. Informal groups become smaller; attendance drops off in little organizations, and the organizations themselves wither. Now, in small gatherings of your oldest friends, you feel that you are talking to yourselves, that you are isolated from the reality of things. This weakens your confidence still further and serves as a further deterrent to—to what? It is clearer all the time that, if you are going to do anything, you must make an occasion to do it, and then you are obviously a troublemaker. So you wait, and you wait.  ”But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked—if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in ’43 had come immediately after the ‘German Firm’ stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in ’33. But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.  ”And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self-deception has grown too heavy, and some minor incident, in my case my little boy, hardly more than a baby, saying ‘Jewish swine,’ collapses it all at once, and you see that everything, everything, has changed and changed completely under your nose. The world you live in—your nation, your people—is not the world you were born in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. Now you live in a system which rules without responsibility even to God. The system itself could not have intended this in the beginning, but in order to sustain itself it was compelled to go all the way.  ”You have gone almost all the way yourself. Life is a continuing process, a flow, not a succession of acts and events at all. It has flowed to a new level, carrying you with it, without any effort on your part. On this new level you live, you have been living more comfortably every day, with new morals, new principles. You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago, a year ago, things that your father, even in Germany, could not have imagined.  ”Suddenly it all comes down, all at once. You see what you are, what you have done, or, more accurately, what you haven’t done (for that was all that was required of most of us: that we do nothing). You remember those early meetings of your department in the university when, if one had stood, others would have stood, perhaps, but no one stood. A small matter, a matter of hiring this man or that, and you hired this one rather than that. You remember everything now, and your heart breaks. Too late. You are compromised beyond repair.  ”What then? You must then shoot yourself. A few did. Or ‘adjust’ your principles. Many tried, and some, I suppose, succeeded; not I, however. Or learn to live the rest of your life with your shame. This last is the nearest there is, under the circumstances, to heroism: shame. Many Germans became this poor kind of hero, many more, I think, than the world knows or cares to know.”  I said nothing. I thought of nothing to say.  ”I can tell you,” my colleague went on, “of a man in Leipzig, a judge. He was not a Nazi, except nominally, but he certainly wasn’t an anti-Nazi. He was just—a judge. In ’42 or ’43, early ’43, I think it was, a Jew was tried before him in a case involving, but only incidentally, relations with an ‘Aryan’ woman. This was ‘race injury,’ something the Party was especially anxious to punish. In the case at bar, however, the judge had the power to convict the man of a ‘nonracial’ offense and send him to an ordinary prison for a very long term, thus saving him from Party ‘processing’ which would have meant concentration camp or, more probably, deportation and death. But the man was innocent of the ‘nonracial’ charge, in the judge’s opinion, and so, as an honorable judge, he acquitted him. Of course, the Party seized the Jew as soon as he left the courtroom.”  ”And the judge?”  ”Yes, the judge. He could not get the case off his conscience—a case, mind you, in which he had acquitted an innocent man. He thought that he should have convicted him and saved him from the Party, but how could he have convicted an innocent man? The thing preyed on him more and more, and he had to talk about it, first to his family, then to his friends, and then to acquaintances. (That’s how I heard about it.) After the ’44 Putsch they arrested him. After that, I don’t know.”  I said nothing.  ”Once the war began,” my colleague continued, “resistance, protest, criticism, complaint, all carried with them a multiplied likelihood of the greatest punishment. Mere lack of enthusiasm, or failure to show it in public, was ‘defeatism.’ You assumed that there were lists of those who would be ‘dealt with’ later, after the victory. Goebbels was very clever here, too. He continually promised a ‘victory orgy’ to ‘take care of’ those who thought that their ‘treasonable attitude’ had escaped notice. And he meant it; that was not just propaganda. And that was enough to put an end to all uncertainty.  ”Once the war began, the government could do anything ‘necessary’ to win it; so it was with the ‘final solution of the Jewish problem,’ which the Nazis always talked about but never dared undertake, not even the Nazis, until war and its ‘necessities’ gave them the knowledge that they could get away with it. The people abroad who thought that war against Hitler would help the Jews were wrong. And the people in Germany who, once the war had begun, still thought of complaining, protesting, resisting, were betting on Germany’s losing the war. It was a long bet. Not many made it.”  Copyright notice: Excerpt from pages 166-73 of They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45 by Milton Mayer, published by the University of Chicago Press. ©1955, 1966 by the University of Chicago. All rights reserved. This text may be used and shared in accordance with the fair-use provisions of U.S. copyright law, and it may be archived and redistributed in electronic form, provided that this entire notice, including copyright information, is carried and provided that the University of Chicago Press is notified and no fee is charged for access. Archiving, redistribution, or republication of this text on other terms, in any medium, requires the consent of the University of Chicago Press. (Footnotes and other references included in the book may have been removed from this online version of the text.)
Milton Mayer  They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45

+++++++++++++++++++

Funny thing about thinking you are free and actually being free. This is just a small list of things the US government has deceived the American people with in our short 200 + year history. Check it out and see if it shocks you.

1) Example: Do you live in CA or California? (AL vs. Alabama, IA vs. Iowa, etc.)

CA is a postal term for a state of the United States. California is a state of the United States of America. No, the United States is NOT the same as the United States of America. So, do you live in the United States?

2) Do you “drive a vehicle” or “travel in a car”?

Driving a vehicle is a privilege involving the use of public roads in order to make a living (a job) related to commerce. This has to do with an occupation like a bus driver, a taxi driver, a race car driver, etc. Traveling is a right to which the state has NO AUTHORITY to regulate or place restrictions upon. (However this does NOT give you a right to violate someone else’s rights.)

3) Are you a “resident” or an “inhabitant” of your state? (Presidential qualifications)

A resident is a temporary place of living. For example, if you were a college student and you went to school in another state, the dormitory/apartment where you live while going to school would be considered a residence (a.k.a., a residence hall). Your domicile would be your permanent home. For most students, that would be your parent’s house. Also, you would be considered an inhabitant of the state in which you were born.

4) Is your name be spelled with ALL CAPITAL LETTERS or Upper and Lower Case Letters? Does your ACL name represent a human being or a corporation under the law? Is DOE a dear or is it the Department of Energy? It is the latter. Is DOT a period or is it the Department of Transportation? It is the latter as well.

See
http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/…wOnTheName.htm

for more information about the subject.

Another interesting article about ALL CAPITAL NAMES is on http://www.crosstheborder.org/ss-motb/AppendixJ.htm . Read it and see what you think of it. You just might find out why the government spells your name in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS on you Birth Certificate, your Social Security Card, your driver’s license, etc.

5) Were you born in the United States of America (includes the real 50 states like Ohio, Texas, etc.) or the United States (This is where the United States terms like OH, TX, etc. causes problems)? Why? Because OH is not the same state as Ohio, TX is not the same state as Texas, etc. You see, the United States of America is the name of our country. The United States is the name of our capital. It was in Philadelphia at one point, but it is now Washington, DC.) Are you a 14th Amendment citizen of the United States or are you a free inhabitant of one of the 50 states? After all, the 14th Amendment citizenship is the federal United States citizenship created for the slaves.

6)Is the yellow fringe on the U.S. Flag a decoration or does it represent something more sinister? What jurisdiction does this particular flag represent? Is the U.S. Flag the same flag as the flag for the United States of America represented in the Pledge of Allegiance?

See the websites like http://www.outlawslegal.com/answers/goldflag.htm http://www.outlawslegal.com/organic/flag.htm

7) Is a “republic” the same as a “democracy”?

Republics are ruled by law. Our country is a Constitutional Republic and we are ruled by Constitutional law. We are NOT a Democracy! Why? Democracy is defined as mob or majority rule. Some have described it as two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner. V. Lenin is said to have stated himself that democracy is indispensable to socialism and socialism is AN ENEMY OF INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM.

8)Is a “right” the same as a “privilege”? If they are not the same, what is the difference?

No, our rights come from God and government has no authority to regulate them. The Declaration of Independence states that government’s job is to secure these rights. Secure is the key word and it is defined in Black’s Law as “to give security”. Security is defined as protection: assurance: indemnification, etc.” Privilege, on the other hand, is defined as “a particular benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class, beyond the common advantages of other citizens… “ Governments can give privileges, but they have no authority to give rights. This is why the 14th Amendment term “civil rights” is a manipulation of the terms. Civil means state and a state can give no rights. They only give privileges. Can you see the deception now?

9) Does it take a “resolution” or an “act” of Congress to declare war? Have the U.S. government lawfully declared a war since WW2?

Resolution (Black’s Law) – A formal expression of the opinion or will of an official body or a public assembly, adopted by vote: as a legislative resolution. Such may be either a simple, joint or concurrent resolution. The term is usually employed to denote the adoption of a motion, the subject matter of which would NOT PROPERLY CONSITUTE A STATUTE, SUCH AS A MERE EXPRESSION OF OPINION: AN ALTERATION OF THE RULES: A VOTE OF THANKS OR OF CENSURE, ETC. Such is NOT LAW, BUT MERELY A FORM IN WHICH A LEGISLATIVE BODY EXPRESSES AN OPINION. Baker v. City of Milwaukee, 271 Or. 500,533 P.2d 772,775.

The Chief distinction between a “resolution” and a “law” is that the former is used whenever the legislative body passing it wishes merely to express an OPINION as to some given matter or thing and is only to have a temporary effect on such particular thing, while by a “law” it is intended to permanently direct and control matters applying to persons or things in general.

…

Joint Resolution – A resolution adopted by both houses of Congress or a legislature. When such a resolution has been approved by the president or passed with his approval., it has the “EFFECT” of a law ( NO CASE LAW – Also, the term “effect” is the key word here. In other words, it isn’t law, but we will treat it as such anyway. Just one problem here. The Constitution demands an “act” of Congress!) See the law dictionary desciption that stated below:

An “act” of Congress “is necessary” to the commencement of a foreign war and is in itself a “declaration” and fixes the date of the war. Rosenau v. Idaho Mut. Ben. Ass’n, 65 Idaho 408, 145 P.2d 227,230. See Article. 1, Sec. 8, cl., 11, U.S.Const.

10) If there is suppose to be a separation of Church and State, why does the government allow a pagan phallic symbol (the Washington Monument) to stand in the middle of Washington, DC? Isn’t that federal property? Isn’t that kind of like placing a huge cross in DC to represent John Quincy Adams?

11) Since Involuntary servitude is forbidden by the Constitution, isn’t a mandatory draft unconstitutional? There was information about this subject on http://www.hourofthetime.com , but you can find it in other places as well. Seek and you shall find it.

12) If the Constitution says nothing but Gold and Silver coin is to be used in payment of debts, isn’t the Federal Reserve Note unlawful money?

13) Is a “trial by jury” the same as a “jury trial”?

Nope, the former puts all the major decisions in the hands of the jury and out of the hands of the judge and prosecutors. The judge is more of a referee. The latter allows the judge to take more of the controls. In this case, the judge is more than a referee. The jury is there, but it doesn’t have as much authority in this case.

14) Can your President constitutionally suspend the Constitution for any reason? Do “Executive Orders” apply to the average citizen or are they for members of the Executive Branch?

No! There is NO provision in the Constitution allowing the President to suspend the Constitution for any reason. When the government tries to claim such authority, it is a sign that your government is becoming more tyrannical. As for Executive Orders, they are for the employees of the Executive branch only. If you don’t work for the Executive Branch, the President has NO AUTHORITY over and above what the Constitution give him to run your life. If he tries to take on powers not delegated to him by the Constitution, you are looking at a tyrant/traitor on the order of King George.

15) Are drugs “intoxicating liquors”?

Liquor is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as “Alcoholic beverage made by distillation: to be contrasted with wines which are made by fermentation. Now, are cocaine, marijuana, etc. alcoholic beverages? No! So, the federal government (DEA, etc.) has no authority in the legitimate 50 states arresting people for having marijuana, cocaine, etc. This does not count state laws and state law enforcement though!

16) Are Same sex marriages legal or lawful? Let’s look at some Black’s law definitions to see what they say:

Marriage is a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. Singer v. Hara, 11 Wash. App. 247,522 P. 2d 1187,1193. NOW HERE IS SOMETHING INTERESTING – A marriage license is defined (in the law dictionary) as a license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to INTERMARRY, usually addressed to the minister or magistrate who is to perform the ceremony, or , in general terms, to any one authorized to solemnize marriages. By statute in most jurisdiction, it is an essential prerequisite to the lawful solemnization of the marriage. Intermarriage- See Miscegenation – is defined as – Mixture of races: marriage between persons of different races as between a white person and a Negro. Isn’t that interesting?

17) Are NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA, etc. constitutional? Do they meet the definition of a treaty? (Senate votes: CAFTA only got 54 votes out of 100. NAFTA only got 61 votes out of 100.)

NO! You ask “Why not?

Go back and look at your Constitution. The Constitution says that treaties need the consent of 2/3’s of the Senate to be legitimate.(See Article 2 Section 2 Paragraph 2.) Now go see that none of these agreements were properly passed by 2/3 of the Senate. CAFTA, NAFTA, GATT, etc. didn’t get the necessary 2/3 votes in the Senate. For example, CAFTA only got 54 votes out of 100 Senators – not 2/3 .(Also, the Constitution doesn’t have provisions for the House to vote on treaties either.) These agreements are a fraud perpetrated on the American people at best and treason at its worst.

If you don’t think NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA, etc. are treaties, you should check out a law dictionary. A law dictionary will clearly show you that treaties are “agreements” between countries and Mexico, Canada, USA, etc. are all countries.

Are you saying I got the definition of treaty wrong? Well, the Black’s Law (5th Edition) definition of treaty is “A compact made between two or more independent nations with a view to the public welfare. Louis Wolf & Co. v. United States, Cust. & Pat. App. 107 F.2d 819, 827; United States vs. Belmont, N.Y., 301 U.S. 324, 57 S.Ct. 758, 761, 81 L. Ed. 1134. An agreement, league, or contract between two or more nations or sovereigns, formally signed by commissioners properly authorized, and solemnly ratified by the several sovereigns or the supreme power of each state. Edye v. Robertson, 112 U.S. 580, 5 S.Ct. 247, 28 L. Ed. 798; Charlton v. Kelly, 229 U.S. 447, 33 S.Ct. 945, 954, 57 L.Ed. 1274, 46 L.R.A., N.S., 397. A treaty is not only a law but also a contract between two nations and must, if possible, be so construed as to give full force and effect to all its parts. United States v. Reid, C.C.A. Or., 73 F. 2d 153, 155.

Now, can a treaty violate the Constitution?

You will also see in the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution that treaties can’t violate the Constitution because they are to be made “under the authority” (laws) of the United States which are themselves made in pursuance of the Constitution itself. (See Supremacy Clause.) So everyone should ask their representatives about the oaths that every politician and government worker takes to “protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign or domestic.” Ask them what is the penalty for violating that oath. See what kind of answer you get from them.

P.S. What every happened to this case mentioned in the article below?

USWA Files Petition With U.S. Supreme Court

Challenging Constitutionality of NAFTA

Washington, D.C. (July 6) – The United Steelworkers of America (USWA) announced today that it has filed a Certiorari petition with the U.S. Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

The USWA originally brought federal suit in July 1998, charging NAFTA is unconstitutional because it is by definition a treaty and therefore required a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate before being implemented.

This past February, the Federal Court of Appeals in Atlanta ruled that the Steelworkers challenge raised a “political question” beyond the Court’s jurisdiction.

…

At the urging of the Clinton Administration, NAFTA was approved by simple majorities in both the U.S. House and Senate in 1993. The Senate approved NAFTA by a vote of 61 to 38, short of the two-thirds margin needed for a treaty. The USWA argues that NAFTA is an extraordinarily far-reaching agreement having major impact not only on jobs and the economy, but on domestic laws as well. NAFTA plainly constitutes the kind of agreement that under the Constitution cannot be adopted without approval of a two-third’s Senate vote.

Comments

food for thought says:

November 2, 2008 at 4:39 pm

Funny thing about thinking you are free and actually being free. This is just a small list of things the US government has deceived the American people with in our short 200 + year history. Check it out and see if it shocks you.

1) Example: Do you live in CA or California? (AL vs. Alabama, IA vs. Iowa, etc.)

CA is a postal term for a state of the United States. California is a state of the United States of America. No, the United States is NOT the same as the United States of America. So, do you live in the United States?

2) Do you “drive a vehicle” or “travel in a car”?

Driving a vehicle is a privilege involving the use of public roads in order to make a living (a job) related to commerce. This has to do with an occupation like a bus driver, a taxi driver, a race car driver, etc. Traveling is a right to which the state has NO AUTHORITY to regulate or place restrictions upon. (However this does NOT give you a right to violate someone else’s rights.)

3) Are you a “resident” or an “inhabitant” of your state? (Presidential qualifications)

A resident is a temporary place of living. For example, if you were a college student and you went to school in another state, the dormitory/apartment where you live while going to school would be considered a residence (a.k.a., a residence hall). Your domicile would be your permanent home. For most students, that would be your parent’s house. Also, you would be considered an inhabitant of the state in which you were born.

4) Is your name be spelled with ALL CAPITAL LETTERS or Upper and Lower Case Letters? Does your ACL name represent a human being or a corporation under the law? Is DOE a dear or is it the Department of Energy? It is the latter. Is DOT a period or is it the Department of Transportation? It is the latter as well.

See
http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/…wOnTheName.htm

for more information about the subject.

Another interesting article about ALL CAPITAL NAMES is on http://www.crosstheborder.org/ss-motb/AppendixJ.htm . Read it and see what you think of it. You just might find out why the government spells your name in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS on you Birth Certificate, your Social Security Card, your driver’s license, etc.

5) Were you born in the United States of America (includes the real 50 states like Ohio, Texas, etc.) or the United States (This is where the United States terms like OH, TX, etc. causes problems)? Why? Because OH is not the same state as Ohio, TX is not the same state as Texas, etc. You see, the United States of America is the name of our country. The United States is the name of our capital. It was in Philadelphia at one point, but it is now Washington, DC.) Are you a 14th Amendment citizen of the United States or are you a free inhabitant of one of the 50 states? After all, the 14th Amendment citizenship is the federal United States citizenship created for the slaves.

6)Is the yellow fringe on the U.S. Flag a decoration or does it represent something more sinister? What jurisdiction does this particular flag represent? Is the U.S. Flag the same flag as the flag for the United States of America represented in the Pledge of Allegiance?

See the websites like http://www.outlawslegal.com/answers/goldflag.htm http://www.outlawslegal.com/organic/flag.htm

7) Is a “republic” the same as a “democracy”?

Republics are ruled by law. Our country is a Constitutional Republic and we are ruled by Constitutional law. We are NOT a Democracy! Why? Democracy is defined as mob or majority rule. Some have described it as two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner. V. Lenin is said to have stated himself that democracy is indispensable to socialism and socialism is AN ENEMY OF INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM.

8)Is a “right” the same as a “privilege”? If they are not the same, what is the difference?

No, our rights come from God and government has no authority to regulate them. The Declaration of Independence states that government’s job is to secure these rights. Secure is the key word and it is defined in Black’s Law as “to give security”. Security is defined as protection: assurance: indemnification, etc.” Privilege, on the other hand, is defined as “a particular benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class, beyond the common advantages of other citizens… “ Governments can give privileges, but they have no authority to give rights. This is why the 14th Amendment term “civil rights” is a manipulation of the terms. Civil means state and a state can give no rights. They only give privileges. Can you see the deception now?

9) Does it take a “resolution” or an “act” of Congress to declare war? Have the U.S. government lawfully declared a war since WW2?

Resolution (Black’s Law) – A formal expression of the opinion or will of an official body or a public assembly, adopted by vote: as a legislative resolution. Such may be either a simple, joint or concurrent resolution. The term is usually employed to denote the adoption of a motion, the subject matter of which would NOT PROPERLY CONSITUTE A STATUTE, SUCH AS A MERE EXPRESSION OF OPINION: AN ALTERATION OF THE RULES: A VOTE OF THANKS OR OF CENSURE, ETC. Such is NOT LAW, BUT MERELY A FORM IN WHICH A LEGISLATIVE BODY EXPRESSES AN OPINION. Baker v. City of Milwaukee, 271 Or. 500,533 P.2d 772,775.

The Chief distinction between a “resolution” and a “law” is that the former is used whenever the legislative body passing it wishes merely to express an OPINION as to some given matter or thing and is only to have a temporary effect on such particular thing, while by a “law” it is intended to permanently direct and control matters applying to persons or things in general.

…

Joint Resolution – A resolution adopted by both houses of Congress or a legislature. When such a resolution has been approved by the president or passed with his approval., it has the “EFFECT” of a law ( NO CASE LAW – Also, the term “effect” is the key word here. In other words, it isn’t law, but we will treat it as such anyway. Just one problem here. The Constitution demands an “act” of Congress!) See the law dictionary desciption that stated below:

An “act” of Congress “is necessary” to the commencement of a foreign war and is in itself a “declaration” and fixes the date of the war. Rosenau v. Idaho Mut. Ben. Ass’n, 65 Idaho 408, 145 P.2d 227,230. See Article. 1, Sec. 8, cl., 11, U.S.Const.

10) If there is suppose to be a separation of Church and State, why does the government allow a pagan phallic symbol (the Washington Monument) to stand in the middle of Washington, DC? Isn’t that federal property? Isn’t that kind of like placing a huge cross in DC to represent John Quincy Adams?

11) Since Involuntary servitude is forbidden by the Constitution, isn’t a mandatory draft unconstitutional? There was information about this subject on http://www.hourofthetime.com , but you can find it in other places as well. Seek and you shall find it.

12) If the Constitution says nothing but Gold and Silver coin is to be used in payment of debts, isn’t the Federal Reserve Note unlawful money?

13) Is a “trial by jury” the same as a “jury trial”?

Nope, the former puts all the major decisions in the hands of the jury and out of the hands of the judge and prosecutors. The judge is more of a referee. The latter allows the judge to take more of the controls. In this case, the judge is more than a referee. The jury is there, but it doesn’t have as much authority in this case.

14) Can your President constitutionally suspend the Constitution for any reason? Do “Executive Orders” apply to the average citizen or are they for members of the Executive Branch?

No! There is NO provision in the Constitution allowing the President to suspend the Constitution for any reason. When the government tries to claim such authority, it is a sign that your government is becoming more tyrannical. As for Executive Orders, they are for the employees of the Executive branch only. If you don’t work for the Executive Branch, the President has NO AUTHORITY over and above what the Constitution give him to run your life. If he tries to take on powers not delegated to him by the Constitution, you are looking at a tyrant/traitor on the order of King George.

15) Are drugs “intoxicating liquors”?

Liquor is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as “Alcoholic beverage made by distillation: to be contrasted with wines which are made by fermentation. Now, are cocaine, marijuana, etc. alcoholic beverages? No! So, the federal government (DEA, etc.) has no authority in the legitimate 50 states arresting people for having marijuana, cocaine, etc. This does not count state laws and state law enforcement though!

16) Are Same sex marriages legal or lawful? Let’s look at some Black’s law definitions to see what they say:

Marriage is a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. Singer v. Hara, 11 Wash. App. 247,522 P. 2d 1187,1193. NOW HERE IS SOMETHING INTERESTING – A marriage license is defined (in the law dictionary) as a license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to INTERMARRY, usually addressed to the minister or magistrate who is to perform the ceremony, or , in general terms, to any one authorized to solemnize marriages. By statute in most jurisdiction, it is an essential prerequisite to the lawful solemnization of the marriage. Intermarriage- See Miscegenation – is defined as – Mixture of races: marriage between persons of different races as between a white person and a Negro. Isn’t that interesting?

17) Are NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA, etc. constitutional? Do they meet the definition of a treaty? (Senate votes: CAFTA only got 54 votes out of 100. NAFTA only got 61 votes out of 100.)

NO! You ask “Why not?

Go back and look at your Constitution. The Constitution says that treaties need the consent of 2/3’s of the Senate to be legitimate.(See Article 2 Section 2 Paragraph 2.) Now go see that none of these agreements were properly passed by 2/3 of the Senate. CAFTA, NAFTA, GATT, etc. didn’t get the necessary 2/3 votes in the Senate. For example, CAFTA only got 54 votes out of 100 Senators – not 2/3 .(Also, the Constitution doesn’t have provisions for the House to vote on treaties either.) These agreements are a fraud perpetrated on the American people at best and treason at its worst.

If you don’t think NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA, etc. are treaties, you should check out a law dictionary. A law dictionary will clearly show you that treaties are “agreements” between countries and Mexico, Canada, USA, etc. are all countries.

Are you saying I got the definition of treaty wrong? Well, the Black’s Law (5th Edition) definition of treaty is “A compact made between two or more independent nations with a view to the public welfare. Louis Wolf & Co. v. United States, Cust. & Pat. App. 107 F.2d 819, 827; United States vs. Belmont, N.Y., 301 U.S. 324, 57 S.Ct. 758, 761, 81 L. Ed. 1134. An agreement, league, or contract between two or more nations or sovereigns, formally signed by commissioners properly authorized, and solemnly ratified by the several sovereigns or the supreme power of each state. Edye v. Robertson, 112 U.S. 580, 5 S.Ct. 247, 28 L. Ed. 798; Charlton v. Kelly, 229 U.S. 447, 33 S.Ct. 945, 954, 57 L.Ed. 1274, 46 L.R.A., N.S., 397. A treaty is not only a law but also a contract between two nations and must, if possible, be so construed as to give full force and effect to all its parts. United States v. Reid, C.C.A. Or., 73 F. 2d 153, 155.

Now, can a treaty violate the Constitution?

You will also see in the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution that treaties can’t violate the Constitution because they are to be made “under the authority” (laws) of the United States which are themselves made in pursuance of the Constitution itself. (See Supremacy Clause.) So everyone should ask their representatives about the oaths that every politician and government worker takes to “protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign or domestic.” Ask them what is the penalty for violating that oath. See what kind of answer you get from them.

P.S. What every happened to this case mentioned in the article below?

USWA Files Petition With U.S. Supreme Court

Challenging Constitutionality of NAFTA

Washington, D.C. (July 6) – The United Steelworkers of America (USWA) announced today that it has filed a Certiorari petition with the U.S. Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

The USWA originally brought federal suit in July 1998, charging NAFTA is unconstitutional because it is by definition a treaty and therefore required a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate before being implemented.

This past February, the Federal Court of Appeals in Atlanta ruled that the Steelworkers challenge raised a “political question” beyond the Court’s jurisdiction.

…

At the urging of the Clinton Administration, NAFTA was approved by simple majorities in both the U.S. House and Senate in 1993. The Senate approved NAFTA by a vote of 61 to 38, short of the two-thirds margin needed for a treaty. The USWA argues that NAFTA is an extraordinarily far-reaching agreement having major impact not only on jobs and the economy, but on domestic laws as well. NAFTA plainly constitutes the kind of agreement that under the Constitution cannot be adopted without approval of a two-third’s Senate vote.