AMERICAN's take note!

[FellowTraveler]

I'm sorry but I believe that your arguments are an unfortunate collection of misinformation, misinterpretation, and simple error. There is probably nothing I can say that will change your mind, but I would suggest that you might wish to consider the following:

-- The mission of the Department of State. (Note that it executes the foreign, not domestic, policy of the President.)

For the record, I first took the oath to support and defend the Constitution in 1972. Last renewed my oath in July of 2007.

With respect,

Yes, a little research will reveal "that Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America (USA) were in fact declared ratified by a Secretary of State". Notice; I did not say the Constitution of the UNITED STATES (US)!

Another finding these days is that many states of the union are requiring an oath to support and defend the constitution and also defend the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, for the unsuspecting this was originally known as a martial law oath forced upon the southern states in order to be allowed back into the union of the several states after the so-called civil war. "All smoke n mirrors"!

[Ray_G]

No, but after 18 years as a single father, my son did. Joined the USMC. Even got the little ribbon for joining during time of war. (Which in itself is unconstitutional, considering that only Congress can declare war - and the last time they did was what? 1942?)

So-no offense intended here, that's just a no. Your son's service in the USMC, the same Marine Corps I am privileged to serve in is honorable. The earning of the NDSM isn't for service during a time of war, it's for a time of national emergency such as the period following 9/11. That medal has never been awarded during a time of declared US war given that it was created in 1953

They have been since day one:

http://open.salon.com/blog/stuartbra...tion_over_9-11

I am a bit skeptical of the sourcing-both of the referenced book, as well as posting to a blog called 'open salon'. Moreover one person's account for something does not the KGB make. Anyone who has spent any time working in the USG knows how absurd the conspiracy theories are that abound about such things.

Sounds good, but it's a bit like that other question: When it happens - when you get a direct order to do something which violates the constitution - will you submit, or?

[EDIT: That was a facetious question BTW. When it actually happens, martial law will have been declared, and your oath will be invalid since the constitution will have been, "temporarily suspended".]

A response to this could go a couple of ways. On one hand I take what I do very seriously-and have been doing it for some time now. The same seriousness that some take with rhetoric and conspiracy theories like in this thread; except mine is borne out with significant amounts of time in combat. So submission isn't really something I do well, I obey lawful orders and defend the constitution against all enemies. The hypothetical declaration of martial law wouldn't sidestep that free-thinking capability and devotion to the country. For people to posture otherwise is a disservice to the institutions of the country that serve.

[TangoBlue]

So-no offense intended here, that's just a no. Your son's service in the USMC, the same Marine Corps I am privileged to serve in is honorable. The earning of the NDSM isn't for service during a time of war, it's for a time of national emergency such as the period following 9/11. That medal has never been awarded during a time of declared US war given that it was created in 1953



I am a bit skeptical of the sourcing-both of the referenced book, as well as posting to a blog called 'open salon'. Moreover one person's account for something does not the KGB make. Anyone who has spent any time working in the USG knows how absurd the conspiracy theories are that abound about such things.





A response to this could go a couple of ways. On one hand I take what I do very seriously-and have been doing it for some time now. The same seriousness that some take with rhetoric and conspiracy theories like in this thread; except mine is borne out with significant amounts of time in combat. So submission isn't really something I do well, I obey lawful orders and defend the constitution against all enemies. The hypothetical declaration of martial law wouldn't sidestep that free-thinking capability and devotion to the country. For people to posture otherwise is a disservice to the institutions of the country that serve.

X2. Errr. However. a pragmatic response based on fact and first-hand experience will not likely be well received in this thread.

[FellowTraveler]

Dulocracy comes to mind as the form of government that has taken hold herein America, defined as a government of servants that gives itself so much license and privilege that it domineers over those its supposed to serve, not a conspiracy.

Perhaps, we only need to look at the long list of domestic terrorist and potential domestic threats the CZAR of DHS has expounded upon recently, specifically all who do not embrace the predatory nature of current form of government, again not a conspiracy. I find that I fall into many categories by my beliefs in the defense of the constitution, freedom & liberty just to name a few, I'm offended and make no excuses whatsoever when I expound upon my belief the current form of government is engaged in insurrection/treason against the private American citizens.

It's my opinion only and believe I have the right every right to express it, oh cra_ DHS at the gate!

[dwh]

Your son's service in the USMC, the same Marine Corps I am privileged to serve in is honorable.

The implication being that I'm *not* honorable because I wasn't in the military?

My family was here before the revolution. The men in my bloodline have fought in EVERY war this county has ever had. I happened to come of military age after 'Nam when there was no war to fight, so I didn't end up in the military. My father did, my son did. The only reason I didn't, was timing.

And simply serving in the military is no guarantee of honor. I recall several times when my son was seriously pissed off because his locker ON BASE was broken into and his personal possessions were stolen - by other Marines. Simply because one wears green and a high-and-tight does not mean one has, or even understands, honor.

I am a bit skeptical of the sourcing-both of the referenced book, as well as posting to a blog called 'open salon'. Moreover one person's account for something does not the KGB make. Anyone who has spent any time working in the USG knows how absurd the conspiracy theories are that abound about such things.

I will assume that you neither watched the video, nor made any effort to gather other information on the subject. The woman's story is true. She was a U.S. citizen, arrested and incarcerated, in the U.S., without a hearing. Her father was an attorney, who was denied access to her.

You are of course, free to believe that the people who were screaming bloody murder all over the Internet and working their butts off to get her out...were all lying.


As for conspiracy theories - in case you haven't noticed, conspiracies do in fact exist. That is the reason there are laws against them. People conspire all the time. Damned near everyone does it. To believe that those at the top are different and never conspire, is delusion.

As an example, though the media labels and presents this (spins it) as a "scandal" it is in fact a conspiracy. A GLOBAL conspiracy. By those at the very top:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libor_scandal

"The investigation was not limited to Barclays.[36][37] It has been reported since then that regulators in at least seven countries are investigating the rigging of the Libor and other interest rates.[38] Around 20 major banks have been named in investigations and court cases.[39]"


It's interesting how many governments looked the other way. They certainly knew about it.

A response to this could go a couple of ways. On one hand I take what I do very seriously-and have been doing it for some time now. The same seriousness that some take with rhetoric and conspiracy theories like in this thread; except mine is borne out with significant amounts of time in combat. So submission isn't really something I do well, I obey lawful orders and defend the constitution against all enemies. The hypothetical declaration of martial law wouldn't sidestep that free-thinking capability and devotion to the country. For people to posture otherwise is a disservice to the institutions of the country that serve.

So you're saying that you would actually refuse an order? You would refuse an order, based solely on *your own judgment* of that order's constitutionality?

Sorry, but your response sounds very much, to me, like the other rhetorical posturing of, "from my cold dead hands".


And where was your zealous defense of the constitution when this happened?:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...-a-us-citizen/



5th Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


So there you have it. Obama and the U.S. government violated the 5th Amendment.

I'm STILL waiting for you to storm the gates and deal with these criminal SOBs. Lemme know when The Corps has it handled. First round's on me.

[FellowTraveler]

In re Charge to Grand Jury, N.D. Ill. (1894), 62 F. 828 which defines insurrection and insurgents. Whenever public funds are used to deny the power of the constitution it is insurrection against the Constitution of the United States of America times two (x2) it becomes treason.

An interesting case U.S. SUPREME COURT Case # 03-1596 a Qui Tam exposing an ongoing insurrection and brought forth after cases under seal in U.S. DISTRICT COURTS within several states of the union were unsealed by defendants named in the cases who then dismissed the cases. The U.S. SUPREME COURT refused a review of the case before them thus aided & abetted in the identified ongoing insurrection. Interesting in that the U.S.SUPREME COURT is charged by law to review all cases of insurrection.

Perhaps, an understanding of Military Jurisdiction/Martial Law in America which would take hold when the courts failed to serve/honor the interest of the people themselves.

Then Amendments 9, 10 & 14 to the Constitution of the United States of America give even the private American citizens the tools to bring any arbitrary government entity back into the bounds placed upon it by the constitution, so the ongoing demonizing of those who would dare by the CZAR of DHS and cohorts.

Enough said, I'm going fishing..........................

[dwh]

Here's another of those tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory kooks:

[kfgk14]

Article VI, the Supremacy Clause.



Treaties do become de facto law under the Constitution and would override state and local laws potentially. But a treaty cannot counteract the Constitution itself. A treaty that conflicts with the 2nd Amendment would have to be unconstitutional because the order of importance starts with the Constitution (and Article VI refers the Constitution to itself, thus nothing can conflict with it as the supremest of the supreme) and by extension Amendments being the only legal modification to it. Treaties have the power of a Federal law but do not exempt the Federal government from Constitutional constraints.

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/s...s/treaties.htm

http://law.onecle.com/constitution/a...aty-power.html

See Doe v. Braden and Reid v. Covert.

In Doe v. Braden the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution is superior to treaties, even though they left open the question whether a Federal court would be able to remove a treaty that is in violation. This is potential left up to the states to nullify.

Clearly the most decisive case is Reid v. Covert where the Court did decide that no treaty can override the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...4_0001_ZO.html

The part about "constitution>treaty" is the part certain people in positions of power in the US forget. Certain people who can order the treaties to be enforced, constitutional or not.

The question, of course, is who will enforce the treaties? I think most of our military won't turn their guns on citizens to confiscate weapons, and I think they know full well it would be a very dangerous proposition to go confiscating weapons from Americans.

[FellowTraveler]

The part about "constitution>treaty" is the part certain people in positions of power in the US forget. Certain people who can order the treaties to be enforced, constitutional or not.

The question, of course, is who will enforce the treaties? I think most of our military won't turn their guns on citizens to confiscate weapons, and I think they know full well it would be a very dangerous proposition to go confiscating weapons from Americans.

My main concern are those who are not American citizens in the U.S. military that are just trying to become citizens IMHO they will pull the trigger.

[Scott C]

Good point, but isn't that a very small percentage? And even a smaller percentage of those that would actually do it.

My main concern are those who are not American citizens in the U.S. military that are just trying to become citizens IMHO they will pull the trigger.