Livefyre Profile

Activity Stream

 @Roberto Benitez Also, amendments to the Constitution can be dangerous, as can the "people who take the oath to "preserve, protect, and defend" it - which now seems to be the customary practice, not the exception - in all 3 branches of our government.

I agree that treaties can be dangerous, but if they attempt to do what I mentioned previously, then those who agree to them must be held accountable because they are consorting with the enemy. I still do not think an amendment is necessary. When they fail to follow the existing Constitution (with amendments), what would indicate that things would change by approving (ratifying) another? Just my "funny way of thinking".

 

I agree with your last paragraph completely.

 

1 year, 10 months ago on Government Bullies

Reply

 @Roberto Benitez I did not say it could not be changed by the amendment process, only that

"an act (treaty, or otherwise) repugnant to the Preamble (reasons for creating the Constitution), other Articles thereof, a republican form of government, our God-given unalienable, inherent rights, are acts of treason...." - and, " I consider any person who attempts to destroy our nation, any portion or Article of our Constitution, our unalienable, inherent rights, and/or our republican form of government such an enemy." Altering an Article to improve it, is not "destroying it" if properly done. I think we are in agreement here, but there may be some confusion as to how I/we have described our position(s). If I was too oblique, I apologize.

1 year, 10 months ago on Government Bullies

Reply

 @Roberto Benitez With all due respect, Roberto, an act (treaty, or otherwise) repugnant to the Preamble (reasons for creating the Constitution), other Articles thereof, a republican form of government, our God-given unalienable, inherent rights, are acts of treason against the people of America (the united States), because it is "adhering to their Enemies" to do so. Enemies can be defined as "a person desirous of doing injury to another." See Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1856) - Enemy definition 4. I consider any person who attempts to destroy our nation, any portion or Article of our Constitution, our unalienable, inherent rights, and/or our republican form of government such an enemy.

1 year, 10 months ago on Government Bullies

Reply

 @Roberto Benitez  @findingthetruth Also, see this link for more detail, and do more "digging" as well. It makes for interesting reading:

http://www.barefootsworld.net/sui_juris/hiding_behind_bar.html

1 year, 10 months ago on Government Bullies

Reply

 @Roberto Benitez  @findingthetruth Most of them, "YES!" They are members of the BAR, and were given titles of nobility (Esquire) for a reason. Research the BAR, and I believe you will find its roots in the British monarchy, and even traced back to the Vatican. I prefer to place my trust in counselors should I need assistance in a valid People's Court of Law.

1 year, 10 months ago on Government Bullies

Reply

 @Roberto Benitez  @hawkeye1937 I agree fully with your last paragraph, and admit you have a valid point regarding Treaties. I believe, however, that the United States cannot make a Treaty that will submit the People to such a Treaty, or Treaties, that wound provide the States with anything but a "...Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;...." (Article IV, Section 4) - which incidentally precedes Article VI. To make any Treaty negating, or running counter to Article IV would, and I believe MUST, be considered an act of TREASON, and any elected officials who have done, or will do, so has to be arrested, tried, and if convicted be sentenced to the maximum sentence possible. See Article III, Section 3.

1 year, 10 months ago on Government Bullies

Reply

 @Roberto Benitez I believe that "Treaties" repulsive to the Constitution are void ab initio, and those in Congress who ratify them, and any President who signs them should be brought to justice ASAP. We cannot abide by international "laws" or "treaties" that are opposed to our Supreme Law, Supreme Court rulings notwithstanding! The People created all 3 branches of our national government through the State Legislatures, and are therefore the final arbiters of constitutionality. I refuse to submit to UN "treaties" written by totalitarian dictators whose objective is to defeat us in any way possible. We need to rescind our involvement with, our membership in, and funding of the UN now.

1 year, 10 months ago on Government Bullies

Reply

 @NavyJR I do not think that it was the downside of free enterprise, but a downside of the criminals' use of the term to disguise their illegal actions that were actually treasonous! Like having  "...given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof [the United States]." Crimes are not valid in a lawful "free enterprise system", and should be dealt with in the harshest way possible IMHO.

1 year, 10 months ago on Government Bullies

Reply

 @Patrick Henry  @NavyJR This might help, it is the verification of the ratification of the first 13th Amendment, regarding nobility: http://www.uhuh.com/constitution/am13-pen.htm

1 year, 10 months ago on Government Bullies

Reply

 @Patrick Henry  @NavyJR I agree with both of you, NavyJR & Patrick Henry; the "nobility" amendment should be returned to its rightful place, and the second 13th round filed; we already know that all men are created equal, and the issue should be considered resolved and immaterial now - although it continues to be a thorn in the side of freedom unfortunately.

1 year, 10 months ago on Government Bullies

Reply

 @NavyJR  @hawkeye1937 I fail to see why not funding either side, but minding our own business of defending this nation and preparing a solid defense against any doubtful attack, would make for 2 enemies. I am not an isolationist, but a non-interventionist favoring economic trade with all friendly and willing nations. I do NOT want to fund both sides of wars that are of no danger to America merely to keep our military/industrial/congressional complex wading in taxpayer dollars which could be used for much better purposes. One step, albeit a small one, would be to repeal the XVII Amendment, allowing the State Legislatures to again select our senators which go to Washington; we can better select and elect (or reject) state legislators who will do a better job, because they're closer to the people of the State than the corporations that get involved when trying to convince and buy the votes of the ignorant. At least, the States will retain some of their power that has been usurped due to all of Congress being selected through popular (democratic/mob) voting. After all, it was the States that originally formed the national government, and ratified the Constitution (after the Bill of Rights was added).

1 year, 10 months ago on Government Bullies

Reply

End all foreign aid - and corporate subsidies while we are at it! Maybe the elections would not be bought for candidates nobody should support.

1 year, 10 months ago on Government Bullies

Reply

 @NavyJR We funded much of the Soviet Union's involvement in WWII, a war which we were led into by FDR's economic blockades of Japan, and his not releasing a known warning of the invasion when it was imminent. God bless those who fought, but we did not belong in that war, or any of the undeclared wars since. We must not keep funding both sides of civil wars around the world. Remember the phrase "... entangling alliances with none".

1 year, 10 months ago on Government Bullies

Reply