***Lord Palmerston's Ghost picks Gov. Rick Perry to lead a new American Genocide

[Protista910]

Although I don't live in Texas myself, BOOT THE f**kING GUY OUT! EN MASSE THE CAPITAL AND HAVE HIM RESIGN! DEVISE A PLAN!

[vcif]

If a bad senator gets elected, we have to wait for years to vote again. A lot of damage can be done in that time, as we know and is seldom undone. But at least there is public interaction.
If a bad senator is appointed, he/she can be replaced fast. Only problem is - who does the appointing? The damage is already done too. What if that person appointing refuses to replace the bad senator or just pops in another bad one. Who will be the 'decider'? It's a really good way to get your cronies installed without any public oversight.  Nomomma's and Bush's appointments are the perfect example of this. Most people in power can not be trusted, unless it's Ron Paul of course.    And I am fresh out of trust.

The General Election of Senators was done to hobble the ability of the people to check the federal government by way of their State legislatures. It is no coincidence that the 17th amendment was part of a three pronged attack against the American people -16th, 17th, Fed Reserve Act all in 1913.

It is ironic that anyone would say that if the Senators were appointed by the State legislature that we would have less control over them as this is the opposite of the truth. Now we have to wait 6 years to remove these criminals. If they were appointed by the State legislature, then they could be removed at any time if the failed to represent the wishes of the people of the State, at any time. This was the very purpose of the bicameral Congress developed in the Constitution.

No one person does the appointing. This is a legislative function of the State Assembly. Decentralization of power. Look at Illinois and Blago for example. I would be the first to condemn the guy, but the ultimate fault lies with the State assembly. Why on earth give a power like that to one person? That kind of power is ripe for corruption. Never give a power to anyone that you would not want your enemy to have.

No system is perfect. However, the more decentralized the power the less able any one person or small group of people are able to abuse their power.

 

[JTCoyoté]

The General Election of Senators was done to hobble the ability of the people to check the federal government by way of their State legislatures. It is no coincidence that the 17th amendment was part of a three pronged attack against the American people -16th, 17th, Fed Reserve Act all in 1913.

It is ironic that anyone would say that if the Senators were appointed by the State legislature that we would have less control over them as this is the opposite of the truth. Now we have to wait 6 years to remove these criminals. If they were appointed by the State legislature, then they could be removed at any time if the failed to represent the wishes of the people of the State, at any time. This was the very purpose of the bicameral Congress developed in the Constitution.

No one person does the appointing. This is a legislative function of the State Assembly. Decentralization of power. Look at Illinois and Blago for example. I would be the first to condemn the guy, but the ultimate fault lies with the State assembly. Why on earth give a power like that to one person? That kind of power is ripe for corruption. Never give a power to anyone that you would not want your enemy to have.

No system is perfect. However, the more decentralized the power the less able any one person or small group of people are able to abuse their power.

 

Perry is a NWO COINTELPRO agent of the highest order, sent in to co-opt the Sovereignty Movement into a secessionist drive… he’s a fricking demon CREEP!

Like I said before, there is nothing in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, that gives a state the power or the right to secede from the Union not even if it has reached a point where the second amendment holds sway. Even at this, there is no power within the Constitution that gives a state a right to secede, for TOGETHER we have pledged “our Sacred Honor.” Not to the federal government, but to each other as States. The Constitution is an agreement BETWEEN the STATES… the federal government is a creation of the States within that agreement, like hiring a lawyer. Secession from the States is like leaving your home because you don’t like what your lawyer is doing… DUH!?

The 10th Amendment State Sovereignty movement however, because it is based in the 10th Amendment, which contains the last three words of the ratified 1791 Constitution and Bill of Rights for the United states of America… namely “to the people.”… and contains the power to restrain the rogues in Washington DC… or force them to show their true stripe, overtly in an open attack on the states and people, is our only lawful remedy.

Now what I mean in my previous paragraph, is that by exercising the 10th Amendment as a resolution, and 38 states or more do this, it opens everything up… everything EXCEPT the LAWFULLY ratified on DEC. 15th, 1791, Constitution and Bill of Rights for the United States of America, including the power to “fire” the federal agency and all of it’s unlawful corporate subsidiaries.

Now what does that mean? It means that the states have the power, outside of convention… (this is not a convention… I want to make that perfectly clear), this is independent individual state legislatures working in concert, to PRESERVE the Constitution, and halt and reverse the federal power grab.

These states will then consider whether that piece of crap 17th amendment is constitutional or not, or whether the reaking garbage called the 16th amendment is constitutional or not. Or if the constitutionality exists for that other piece of tripe the 14th amendment, that was twisted totally to take away our freedom and make us slaves to the federal government as “citizens” that can be culled from the womb, instead of remaining sovereign individuals from conception.

We can also resurrect the original 13th Amendment, which was fully ratified, but disappeared in the melee following the Civil War and was replaced by Lincoln’s anti-slavery 13th amendment. The original 13th amendment, punishes with loss of citizenship etc., acts like the ones by our president, and several of his predecessors and others with past or present power in government including Bilderburg attendee Rick Perry, who have taken emolument, station, gift, and title, from the crowned heads of Europe and others, for their assistance in the global Euro takeover. ALL in direct violation of LAW… at Art. I section 9 of the Constitution, the Logan Act, and the LAWFUL and rightfully ratified, TONA 13th Amendment.

You who seek to jump into the unlawful hell of secession… wanting, that Texas secede from the Union, are playing right into the globalist elitists hands that are attached to those crowned heads of Europe, the traditional enemies of the United States of America!

Do any of you have questions..? Now would be the time to spit them out!

JTCoyoté

"The Neo-Cons don't win elections...
they attach themselves to the winners."
~Patrick J. Buchanan, on Alex Jones 12/5/07

[Raincheck]

I want to be sure I understand this...

if a state decides to secede from the Union, it is, in essence, "playing right into the globalist elitists hands, that are attached to the crown to heads of Europe"

So...should I understand from this that "the Union" is, in reality, something totally detached from "the crown"?


 

[JTCoyoté]

I want to be sure I understand this...

if a state decides to secede from the Union, it is, in essence, "playing right into the globalist elitists hands, that are attached to the crown to heads of Europe"

So...should I understand from this that "the Union" is, in reality, something totally detached from "the crown"?

Yes! That separation was made complete upon the signature of Cornwallis on the surrender documents to Gen. Washington in Sept. 1783...

JTCoyoté

“'Tis the business of little minds to shrink;
but he whose heart is firm, and whose
conscience approves his conduct, will
pursue his principles unto death.”
~Thomas Paine,
Common Sense

[TheCaliKid]

So...should I understand from this that "the Union" is, in reality, something totally detached from "the crown"?

This is the treaty which ended the war between the Colonies and Great Britain:


The Paris Peace Treaty of 1783

"It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch- treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America.."




^ What the...? Was anyone else aware of this?

[pac522]

This is the treaty which ended the war between the Colonies and Great Britain:


The Paris Peace Treaty of 1783

"It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch- treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America.."




^ What the...? Was anyone else aware of this?

You are misreading that. The treaty is between the Crown of Great Britain and the said United States.

[moxiez]

Let me preface this post by saying I didn't read everything up and to this point... but my take on the Texas Secession is, "Divide we fail"

If you want an example of what happens when the NWO gets involved, look at The Soviet Union and how they got broken up into little pieces. They would be a 3rd World country had Putin not stepped in and kicked them all out. Now I'm not standing up for Putin, I think he's just as evil, but not necessarily playing with the NWO.

Anyway, if we end up breaking up into little Nation States, we'll be powerless to stop invaders (physical/financial/whatever), mostly landlocked (for us in the middle), and not able to exchange currencies. Man, what a mess. "United we Stand", remember that?

[TheCaliKid]

You are misreading that. The treaty is between the Crown of Great Britain and the said United States.

But why then, is it calling him "and of the United States of America"?

[TGRR]

However, I do live in Texas and I would support secession. 

I won't miss you.

[Magnumpi]

Oh yes it does! The unfortunate thing is that you don't know it yet, you are playing directly into their hands just like the South Carolina delegation played into it after the provocateured firing on Fort Sumter to secede. It makes you an America sacrificing proponent of civil war. It makes you an unwitting anti-constitutional, enemy of the United States of America.

JTCoyoté

Hmm.. Thomas Jefferson disagreed. Entirely. Kinda nullifies the principles set forth in that one thing, the Declaration of Independence.

[TGRR]

Hmm.. Thomas Jefferson disagreed. Entirely. Kinda nullifies the principles set forth in that one thing, the Declaration of Independence.

Only works if you can make it stick.

The South, for example, was unable to do so.

[Magnumpi]

Only works if you can make it stick.

The South, for example, was unable to do so.

Yeah, don't get me wrong. I don't think it's a good idea. However, it's certainly not un-American to secede and create your own government.

[TGRR]

Yeah, don't get me wrong. I don't think it's a good idea. However, it's certainly not un-American to secede and create your own government.

Beats what we have now.

And by "now" I mean "since Calvin Coolidge shuffled off to Northampton, Massachusetts".

[Unintelligable Name]

Civil war?

Uhhh...

Not this time around.

Interesting to see what the Texas would enact law wise with their own country.

But as many have stated -- it was a passing comment and not a serious proposition.

[TGRR]

Civil war?

Uhhh...

Not this time around.

Interesting to see what the Texas would enact law wise with their own country.

Interesting to see how long before they collapsed in utter anarchy due to being overrun by the drug lords.

[New Whirled Order]

I hope you folks realize that Perry was doing nothing more here than political posturing.  In fact he kind of backpedaled on this statement the very next day.  He's running for governor again and didn't want to miss the opportunity to ride the coattails of the tea party media spectacle.

He's pandering to his voting base.

[TGRR]

I hope you folks realize that Perry was doing nothing more here than political posturing.  In fact he kind of backpedaled on this statement the very next day.  He's running for governor again and didn't want to miss the opportunity to ride the coattails of the tea party media spectacle.

He's pandering to his voting base.

Then he shouldn't be shocked when he gets publicly flogged (metaphorically speaking) for it.

[TheCaliKid]

I hope you folks realize that Perry was doing nothing more here than political posturing.  In fact he kind of backpedaled on this statement the very next day.  He's running for governor again and didn't want to miss the opportunity to ride the coattails of the tea party media spectacle.

He's pandering to his voting base.

I have a pretty good feeling that a lot of politicians are going to do what they always do - take advantage of popular sentiments to get elected, and then once elected, not represent us.

[JTCoyoté]

This is the treaty which ended the war between the Colonies and Great Britain:


The Paris Peace Treaty of 1783

Agreement between.....

"It having pleased the Divine Providence to
dispose the hearts of the most serene and
most potent Prince George the Third,
by the grace of God, king of Great Britain,       = FAT GEORGE, as John Hancock so
France, and Ireland, defender of the faith,                                            eloquently put it.
duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg,
arch-treasurer and prince elector of the
Holy Roman Empire etc.,


and of the United States of America..."           = US, We The People

JTCoyoté

"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought
to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue, but
moderation in principle is always a vice."
"The Rights of Man", 1792
~Thomas Paine

[TheCaliKid]

Ahh, thanks for clearing that up, JTCoyoté. I am no legal expert. 

[JTCoyoté]

Hmm.. Thomas Jefferson disagreed. Entirely. Kinda nullifies the principles set forth in that one thing, the Declaration of Independence.

Jefferson and I are in complete accord, and not in disagreement at all. In the Declaration of Independence, I believe the exact words are "...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of 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..."

This is precisely why the founders fought so hard to produce a timeless and essentially bulletproof Bill of Rights, before the Constitution was ratified that included the 9th and 10th amendments. These are precisely for this very purpose, of removal and reinstitution without resorting to arms. All spelled out by Thomas Jefferson in the above quote from Declaration of Independence.

Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence, nowhere in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution is there a law that justifies secession, the breaking of this contract. This Constitutional agreement between the states and it's enabling document, The Declaration of Independence created the independent states... and then in the same documents fused them together into a singular United power... each separate, yet in agreement by Constitution, with all other states as to how grievances, and disputes and all other matters between states would be handled.

The arbitor by agency, came by the Constitutional creation of a central agent called the federal government. The agent has specific powers, that are spelled out in article I section 8 of the Constitution. It must never grow beyond those powers, yet should it do so, the 9th and 10th will handle the chore of corraling, if exercised with diligence.

All it requires to solve the problem we are in, is the same amount of unity between the states that it took to create federal government in the first place... that is accomplished by the 10th Amendment State Sovereignty movement... States separating from each other, was the last thing any of the founders wanted, they understood that if thet did, they could be picked off by a rogue federal power, one at a time, like stragglers from a herd of wildebeests besieged by Lions.

I hope this helps.

--Oldyoti

"He that would make his own liberty secure,
must guard even his enemy from oppression;
for if he violates this duty, he establishes a
precedent that will reach to himself."
~Thomas Paine

[TheCaliKid]

So, you are saying that we could "institute new Government" based on the Constitution, without resorting to arms? (which is pointless, really.)

But how do we go about it? How do we fix our current situation? 

[JTCoyoté]

Ahh, thanks for clearing that up, JTCoyoté. I am no legal expert. 

You are welcome Dawn... with all the aggrandizing malarkey surrounding "George"... well it is an easy mistake to make just adding us in with the rest... that "etc.," at the end however, is a useful demarcation...

It is accomplished by the states all agreeing to reaffirm and uphold the Constitution using the 9th and 10th Amendments as spelled out here... http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=4199.0

They blew up the Alfred P. Murrah building in OKC to stop us the last time... they will have to do more than that this time... The military are waking up faster than ever now... If there is a resorting to arms, the elite will have to begin it, and the people will see them for the foreign banking, royalist fascist foreign power they are... they will use their old trick of secession which they used the last time... It won't work this time, if we an keep and still have the internet... secession is their TRICK the founders knew better.

--Oldyoti

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress
and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but
to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
--Abraham Lincoln

[Magnumpi]

Jefferson and I are in complete accord, and not in disagreement at all. In the Declaration of Independence, I believe the exact words are "...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of 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..."

This is precisely why the founders fought so hard to produce a timeless and essentially bulletproof Bill of Rights, before the Constitution was ratified that included the 9th and 10th amendments. These are precisely for this very purpose, of removal and reinstitution without resorting to arms. All spelled out by Thomas Jefferson in the above quote from Declaration of Independence.

Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence, nowhere in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution is there a law that justifies secession, the breaking of this contract. This Constitutional agreement between the states and it's enabling document, The Declaration of Independence created the independent states... and then in the same documents fused them together into a singular United power... each separate, yet in agreement by Constitution, with all other states as to how grievances, and disputes and all other matters between states would be handled.

The arbitor by agency, came by the Constitutional creation of a central agent called the federal government. The agent has specific powers, that are spelled out in article I section 8 of the Constitution. It must never grow beyond those powers, yet should it do so, the 9th and 10th will handle the chore of corraling, if exercised with diligence.

All it requires to solve the problem we are in, is the same amount of unity between the states that it took to create federal government in the first place... that is accomplished by the 10th Amendment State Sovereignty movement... States separating from each other, was the last thing any of the founders wanted, they understood that if thet did, they could be picked off by a rogue federal power, one at a time, like stragglers from a herd of wildebeests besieged by Lions.

I hope this helps.

--Oldyoti

"He that would make his own liberty secure,
must guard even his enemy from oppression;
for if he violates this duty, he establishes a
precedent that will reach to himself."
~Thomas Paine

Jefferson said:
"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it." and
"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"

Essentially, to prevent war, allow secession. In the whole quote, it elaborates, and then he goes on to compare the British empire to fighting over it.

Whether it's a good idea or not, it's still a right. And abolishing the government means a new Constitution, and he advocated a new one every 19 years, I believe. Which could bring about anything. And again, I don't support the concept, necessarily. But Lakota basically did it, and it sounds like a fine deal they have going on.

[New Whirled Order]

I have a pretty good feeling that a lot of politicians are going to do what they always do - take advantage of popular sentiments to get elected, and then once elected, not represent us.

During the last election cycle, Mr. Perry ran TV ads where he was standing near the Mexican border wearing a leather jacket talking about how 'tough' he was going to be on illegal immigration.  There was just one problem....  He was already the governor at the time.  Illegal immigration is an issue of convenience for all politicians, yet nothing is ever done about it.  It's all lip service and nothing more.

[JTCoyoté]

Jefferson said:
"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it." and
"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"

Essentially, to prevent war, allow secession. In the whole quote, it elaborates, and then he goes on to compare the British empire to fighting over it.

Whether it's a good idea or not, it's still a right. And abolishing the government means a new Constitution, and he advocated a new one every 19 years, I believe. Which could bring about anything. And again, I don't support the concept, necessarily. But Lakota basically did it, and it sounds like a fine deal they have going on.

Jefferson may have said it, but you will not find it in the law... And as history shows, and has been borne out, secession allowed for the picking away and destruction that became the civil war. It paved the way for all of the abuses that empowered the federal government to the point we see it today.

The Lakota Nation, is a sovereign foreign entity that had shared jurisdiction within the borders of four Western states. In truth, those states and the United States shared jurisdiction with the Lakota only by treaty. The Lakota Nation merely absolved themselves from the treaty. Totally different than what binds the states, the several States... The Lakota are a sovereign people.

So that comparison is similar to comparing France and Montana...

--Oldyoti

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress
and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but
to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
--Abraham Lincoln

[David Rothscum]

I hope you folks realize that Perry was doing nothing more here than political posturing.  In fact he kind of backpedaled on this statement the very next day.  He's running for governor again and didn't want to miss the opportunity to ride the coattails of the tea party media spectacle.

He's pandering to his voting base.

You got that right. He forgot that people support such a thing, but when a prominent politician acutally supports it, they freak out and realise it's not what they want.
"David... we never wanted to secede, seceding is unconstitutional/plays right into their hands/causes civil war !!!"

[TheCaliKid]

You are welcome Dawn... with all the aggrandizing malarkey surrounding "George"... well it is an easy mistake to make just adding us in with the rest... that, "etc.," at the end however, is a useful demarcation...

Thanks. Agreed, it can be confusing if one is not reading it CAREFULLY. In fact, this is a case where it should read it out loud. Sometimes that helps understand the meaning of text.

It is accomplished by the states all agreeing to reaffirm and uphold the Constitution using the 9th and 10th Amendments as spelled out here... http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=4199.0

I agree. And we are having success with this right now if I am not mistaken, correct?

They blew up the Alfred P Murrah building in OKC to stop us the last time... they will have to do more than that this time... The military are waking up faster than ever now... If there is a resorting to arms, they will have to begin it and the people will see them for the foreign banking, royalist fascist power they are... they will use their old trick of secession which they used the last time... It won't work this time, if we still have the internet... secession is their TRICK the founders knew better.

Can you elaborate more on this? Maybe start a thread or point us to links? I was only about 14 years old at the time, so I do not know a lot about this.


Also, a resorting to arms is the last resort. War and bloodshed are to be avoided at all costs. We need to work through the system at the local level, they are closest to the people.





Magnumpi -

Here is a quote from Thomas Jefferson you may enjoy:


"Every generation needs a new revolution." Thomas Jefferson

[TheCaliKid]

The Lakota are a sovereign people.

What are your thoughts on Native Americans being a sovereign people? Do you believe in it? Could they help us, or could we join forces at some point in the future?

I am Pro-Native American (And anti-gambling - a vice of the White Man)


Lakota woman:

[JTCoyoté]

We are American Indians... Ask the folks at AIM.
Native American is generic.... like generic cigarettes compared to American Spirits...

The question about OKC and what prompted all of the provacateured violence by the government beginning with Ruby Ridge, is because of the Constitutional Patriot Movement... the 10th Amendment method is all spelled out in the thread I linked to above... I suggest that you sit down, and listen to this, from the beginning to the end... every word, every call, and every guest...

http://www.ajpfiles.com/February2009/Alex%20Jones%202%2016%202009.mp3

JTCoyoté

“He who is the author of a war lets loose
the whole contagion of hell and opens a
vein that bleeds a nation to death."
~Thomas Paine,
Common Sense

[EvadingGrid]

I suggest that you sit down, and listen to this, from the beginning to the end... every word, every call, and every guest...

http://www.ajpfiles.com/February2009/Alex%20Jones%202%2016%202009.mp3

JTCoyoté

Actually would rather listen to you talking on The Infowarrior, please explain allot more about the 10th Amendment Movement. After all its a Global Audiance, so plenty of people need more info straight from the Coyote's mouth.
 

[donnay]

Like I said before, there is nothing in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, that gives a state the power or the right to secede from the Union not even if it has reached a point where the second amendment holds sway. But even at this, there is no power within the Constitution that gives a state of power to secede, for TOGETHER we have pledged "our Sacred Honor."  Not to the federal government, but to each other as states.

The 10th Amendment State Sovereignty movement however, because it is based in the 10th Amendment, which contains the last three words of the ratified 1791 Constitution and Bill of Rights for the United states of America... namely "to the people."... and contains the power to restrain the rogues in Washington DC... or force them to show their true stripe, overtly in an open attack on the states and people.

Now what I mean in my previous paragraph, is that by exercising the 10th Amendment as a resolution, and 38 states or more do this, it opens everything up... everything... EXCEPT the ratified on DEC. 15th, 1791 Constitution and Bill of Rights for the United States of America.

Now what does that mean?  That means that the states then have the power, outside of convention... this is not a convention... I want to make that perfectly clear this is independent individual state legislatures working in concert, to preserve the Constitution. These states then will concider whether that piece of crap 17th amendment is constitutional or not, or that freaking piece of garbage called the 16th amendment is constitutional or not, or that other piece of tripe the 14th amendment that was twisted totally to take away our freedom and make us slaves to the federal government as  "citizens" instead of remaining sovereign individuals from conception.

We can also resurrect the original 13th Amendment, which was fully ratified, but disappeared in the melee after the Civil War and was replaced by Lincoln's anti-slavery 13th amendment... The original 13th amendment, punishes with loss of citizenship etc... acts like the fact that our president... and several of his predecessors and others of power in government including Bilderburg attendee Rick Perry, have taken emolument, station, gift, and title, from the crowned heads of Europe and others.

You who seek to jump into the unlawful hell of secession... wanting that Texas secede from the Union, are playing right into the globalist elitists hands that are attached to the crowned heads of Europe, and the traditional enemies of the United States of America!

Do any of you have any questions... now would be the time to spit them out!

JTCoyoté

"The Neo-Cons don't win elections...
they attach themselves to the winners."
~Patrick J. Buchanan, on Alex Jones 12/5/07

One of the main reasons why I loathe lawyers.  Look at the bunch we have in DC--lawyers that make the laws, break the laws and know all the loop holes!  I would love to see the day when the original 13th is recognized and enforced. That is the day we can, "...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..."

Yes we can!!
 

[suspiciousmind]

Rick Perry is trying to co-opt our movments for the NWO. We all know this guy was at Bilderberg, and by making statements like this, he is only trying to get the votes of the third party candidates like Ron Paul. You can see, the GOP core are starting to mimic Ron Paul and the calls of those who support him. Rush, Hannity, Coulter and others are starting to put voice to the things that we have all talked about for a long time now. But, don't be fooled. They will attach themselves only long enough to win an election or, more like put the votes where they want them. In the end, once elected, Perry or Palin or whomever, will only be another Bush, Obama, or Clinton.

This is all window dressing for 2012. It is still going to be Bilderberg running things, it won't matter. It is important that we don't start falling for people like Hannity or those types. They are just trying to steal your vote. Vote in protest...vote third party every time.

[Betraybyall]

I just think it's nice when folks can get together on something.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html

[pac522]

Seems like the original 13th was replaced by the <a href="http://law.jrank.org/pages/8357/Logan-Act.html">Logan Act</a>, which since it's inception in 1799, has only one indictment which occurred in 1803. It involved a Kentucky newspaper article that argued for the formation in the western United States of a separate nation allied to France. No prosecution followed.

Where's the beef?

The Logan Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 953 [1948]) is a single federal statute making it a crime for a citizen to confer with foreign governments against the interests of the United States. Specifically, it prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the United States without authorization.

Congress established the Logan Act in 1799, less than one year after passage of the ALIEN AND SEDITION ACTS, which authorized the arrest and deportation of ALIENS and prohibited written communication defamatory to the U.S. government. The 1799 act was named after Dr. George Logan. A prominent Republican and Quaker from Pennsylvania, Logan did not draft or introduce the legislation that bears his name, but was involved in the political climate that precipitated it.

In the late 1790s, a French trade embargo and jailing of U.S. seamen created animosity and unstable conditions between the United States and France. Logan sailed to France in the hope of presenting options to its government to improve relations with the United States and quell the growing anti-French sentiment in the United States. France responded by lifting the embargo and releasing the captives. Logan's return to the United States was marked by Republican praise and Federalist scorn. To prevent U.S. citizens from interfering with negotiations between the United States and foreign governments in the future, the Adams administration quickly introduced the bill that would become the Logan Act.

The Logan Act has remained almost unchanged and unused since its passage. The act is short and reads as follows:

   

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

    This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

The language of the act appears to encompass almost every communication between a U.S. citizen and a foreign government considered an attempt to influence negotiations between their two countries. Because the language is so broad in scope, legal scholars and judges have suggested that the Logan Act is unconstitutional. Historically, the act has been used more as a threat to those engaged in various political activities than as a weapon for prosecution. In fact, Logan Act violations have been discussed in almost every administration without any serious attempt at enforcement, and to date there have been no convictions and only one recorded indictment.

One example of the act's use as a threat of prosecution involved the Reverend JESSE JACKSON. In 1984 Jackson took well-publicized trips to Cuba and Nicaragua and returned with several Cuban political prisoners seeking ASYLUM in the United States. President RONALD REAGAN stated that Jackson's activities may have violated the law, but Jackson was not pursued beyond a threat.

The only Logan Act indictment occurred in 1803. It involved a Kentucky newspaper article that argued for the formation in the western United States of a separate nation allied to France. No prosecution followed.

Kearney, Kevin M. 1987. "Private Citizens in Foreign Affairs: A Constitutional Analysis." Emory Law Journal 36 (winter).

Roth, Brad R. 1993. "The First Amendment in the Foreign Affairs Realm: 'Domesticating' the Restrictions on Citizen Participation." Temple Political and Civil Rights Law Review 2 (spring).

[JTCoyoté]

EvadingGrid,

The reason why I linked to the original state sovereignty broadcast that Alex gave on February 16, 2009, is because of its overall information, not just the things that I brought forward, but Alex's first hour talk as well... The entire show was a very good one. In the 45 minutes or so that I am on a lot of the loose ends get tied up in most folks thinking with regard to the 10th amendment sovereignty movement, it's history, its constitutionality, how it can never become a constitutional convention, and also how it is exactly the opposite of a push for secession.

On Jason's show last week, the conversation had more to do with how I became associated with the prison planet forum, including antidotes about the forum, all beginning with the 10th amendment movement in Colorado. Right now the information on how the 10th amendment resolution works, and folks' questions about it, is all-important in my mind.

pac522,

The difference between the original TONA 13th amendment and the Logan act, is its focus, and its punishments. Add to that the fact that the original 13th amendment was ratified by the states, and thus has direct constitutional power and visibility. It focuses, as it should, primarily upon legal and government officials. Those who would have access to the levers of power, and in so having, would have the ability to easily manipulate our free system through the power of money, into a satellite of the very powers that we fought so hard to separate ourselves from.

The Logan act is a watered-down version of John Adams' aliens and sedition act. These concentrate the primary focus away from government and its officials toward the private sector. These do not specifically target acts of betrayal within government, where history shows the vast majority of such activity exists. This is why during the presidency of James Madison, the House and the Senate of the United States, seeing the infiltration and subterfuge of federal and state governments by agents of foreign powers via the banks primarily, decided to amend the Constitution as a warning to any and all in the government and finance against selling out the country to the Banks and Crowned heads of Europe for favor... saying that citizenship would be forfeit, which brings along with it charges of treason... and most lawyers, and educated men of the time, knew exactly what that meant AND the penalty for it. Here is the original 13th amendment:

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

Without this amendment, the Logan act is merely a futile exercise. Which remains broad and ambiguous just like the last clause in article 1 section 9 of the Constitution... where it says that you can't do this, you can't accept emolument from kings and princes, and members of Parliament or what ever... you can't accept bribes... but there is no "real" punishment for it if you do.

The Logan act notwithstanding, the fully ratified 13th amendment as it appeared in the laws of this country until it was completely replaced throughout the states by Lincoln's anti-slavery 13th amendment in 1873 must be reinstated. It was never voted on by the states for removal by constitutional process, it was just replace in February 1865, in the melee and chaos of post-Civil War reconstruction and post-assassination amnesia. It needs to be reinstated! Lincoln's anti-slavery amendment needs to take its proper place as the 14th amendment, and our present the 14th amendment needs to take it's proper place, it should be removed and interred in the grave of Benedict Arnold...

JTCoyoté

“An army of principles can penetrate
where an army of soldiers cannot.”
~Thomas Paine,
Common Sense

[thru the matrix]

Henry Makow posted an article on the subject...

Illuminati Will Pretend to Lead Resistance to NWO
http://www.henrymakow.com/test.html

Make sure you read the comments below the article as well.... some good added insights.

[JTCoyoté]

Henry Makow posted an article on the subject...

Illuminati Will Pretend to Lead Resistance to NWO
http://www.henrymakow.com/test.html

Make sure you read the comments below the article as well.... some good added insights.

... Thank you.

Secessionist movements of all stripe have always been controlled by the NWO... The stories I can tell you from the '90s would make your skin crawl...

JTCoyoté

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those
who falsely believe they are free."
 -- Johann W. Von Goethe

[thru the matrix]

It would be really helpful to me, as there a tremendous amount of information in this thread, if you could post a bullet pointed summary of all the major points that you'd like the reader to take away.  I'm sure there are more out there who are coming to this issues without your background and experience and it would be great if everyone can sure to take-away a solid understanding of the important issues.