Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube 150 97 SEATS LEFT - 2018 ENERGY CONFERENCE

Monero XMR


Go Back   Energetic Forum > >
   

Renewable Energy Discussion on various alternative energy, renewable energy, & free energy technologies. Also any discussion about the environment, global warming, and other related topics are welcome here.

* NEW * BEDINI RPX BOOK & DVD SET: BEDINI RPX

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #3721  
Old 01-07-2013, 08:44 PM
5150's Avatar
5150 5150 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Near downtown
Posts: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Scientist View Post
I would say that would have to depend on the type of crime committed and then a review a judge, panel, committee,(?), etc. to try and determine if the individual will be a threat to society.
So basically you're saying that individual rights can be infringed upon for the greater good of society if determined by a panel, or a judge, or a special review. Which means you're for gun confiscation if its best for the greater good or society. Or thats what it sounds like you're saying.

Seems the argument today by many people (Not all) is that guns are not needed in our society as this is no longer the old west. That only law enforcement should really have them and even hunting is so restricted now that its best to do away with that in the name of preserving animals and wildlife.

Under current law it doesn't mater what the felony was that a person was convicted under the convicted criminal no longer has the legal right to own or possess a gun even for protection of self or against a tyrannical government. Even if you wrote hot checks or perpetrated a crime that was not violent or involved a weapon you are still no longer allowed to vote or own a gun.

Do you think someone who is being abused by LEOs or is under threat is going to give a damn about what the law says if there is a gun around?
__________________
 
Reply With Quote

Download SOLAR SECRETS by Peter Lindemann
Free - Get it now: Solar Secrets

  #3722  
Old 01-07-2013, 08:48 PM
aljhoa aljhoa is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,168
Mundialization - Pike and Mazzini

Yet another fabrication—often repeated by anti-masons and conspiracy theorists—is the claim that Albert Pike was in correspondence with Giusseppe Mazzini. First claimed by Edith Starr Miller, the accusation was later repeated by William Guy Carr, who cited Cardinal Caro y Rodriguez of Santiago, Chile, author of The Mystery of Freemasonry Unveiled. In Pawns in the Game Carr claims that this correspondence was on display in the British Museum but didn't provide the source of his information. Later, in Satan, Prince of this World, Carr includes the following footnote:
"The Keeper of Manuscripts recently informed the author that this letter is NOT catalogued in the British Museum Library. It seems strange that a man of Cardinal Rodriguez's knowledge should have said that it WAS in 1925".

"The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion...We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time."3

Albert Pike's correspondence with Giusseppe Mazzini : a fraud


Al
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #3723  
Old 01-07-2013, 08:56 PM
jdodson's Avatar
jdodson jdodson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 183
@5150

Honestly taking guns away from anyone is just the first step to a nanny state government. Who are they to decide someone is not allowed to have that freedom? If someone commits a crime, have they not paid their debt to society by serving their time in prison? Is the government in the business of predicting human behavior now? Why punish those who have been truly rehabilitated due to those who have not?

Why must someone be punished for the rest of their lives?
I believe it is just an excuse to strip more Americans from their freedom.
They are already trying to do it to the rest of us who have committed no crime!

Obviously there could be exceptions, for example if someone is a repeat offender of a crime involving a gun ect...The way laws are today, its not hard to get hit with a felony.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #3724  
Old 01-07-2013, 11:01 PM
5150's Avatar
5150 5150 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Near downtown
Posts: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdodson View Post
@5150

Honestly taking guns away from anyone is just the first step to a nanny state government. Who are they to decide someone is not allowed to have that freedom? If someone commits a crime, have they not paid their debt to society by serving their time in prison? Is the government in the business of predicting human behavior now? Why punish those who have been truly rehabilitated due to those who have not?

Why must someone be punished for the rest of their lives?
I believe it is just an excuse to strip more Americans from their freedom.
They are already trying to do it to the rest of us who have committed no crime!

Obviously there could be exceptions, for example if someone is a repeat offender of a crime involving a gun ect...The way laws are today, its not hard to get hit with a felony.

Your argument is the “slippery slope” argument where as soon as you allow any infringement then there is no stopping it until the final result is a total gun ban. The only question is how far along that scale will it go before the people stand up and revolt. Will it not be until a total gun ban is in place or when the people have already given up their guns and realize their mistake but also realize it’s too late to change things?

As for your comment is it the governments job of predicting human behavior and the question is yes. They have already legally ruled on civil commitments and the Supreme Court has ruled the government can legally detain and hold a person or people who they feel are a threat. They do this already with sex offenders as well as people listed as terrorists or enemy combatants so that legal slippery slope has already been started as well and the only question is when will you and I be next on their list or agenda?

They are using every opportunity or excuse as you described to remove as many “rights” and "freedoms" as possible so eventually they have total control and compliance.

I could go on but I'm preaching to the Choir
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #3725  
Old 01-08-2013, 12:20 AM
Mad Scientist Mad Scientist is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Illinois
Posts: 563
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdodson View Post
@5150

Honestly taking guns away from anyone is just the first step to a nanny state government. Who are they to decide someone is not allowed to have that freedom? If someone commits a crime, have they not paid their debt to society by serving their time in prison? Is the government in the business of predicting human behavior now? Why punish those who have been truly rehabilitated due to those who have not?

Why must someone be punished for the rest of their lives?
I believe it is just an excuse to strip more Americans from their freedom.
They are already trying to do it to the rest of us who have committed no crime!

Obviously there could be exceptions, for example if someone is a repeat offender of a crime involving a gun ect...The way laws are today, its not hard to get hit with a felony.
I agree with what idodson's says. But when you have a person who is a repeat offender particularity one that uses a gun as an offensive weapon, at what point do you say that they should no longer be trusted with a gun?

By the way yesterday I just sent out eight emails to some of our illustrious state representatives telling them that passing the anti-gun amendments they were thinking about would be considered a treasonous act!
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #3726  
Old 01-08-2013, 01:10 AM
5150's Avatar
5150 5150 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Near downtown
Posts: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Scientist View Post
I agree with what idodson's says. But when you have a person who is a repeat offender particularity one that uses a gun as an offensive weapon, at what point do you say that they should no longer be trusted with a gun?

See the problem here is not removing this Repeat offenders constitutional rights to have a gun, but rather the failure (or problem) is the criminal justice system that has allowed such a repeat offender to be released back to the streets if the person is not rehabilitated or able to understand his actions.

The argument continues that if the offender has served his time from the previous crimes he has committed then he has paid his debt to society and should be allowed to have his guns back (even if he is a "repeat" offender) if he has served his time in each of his cases. If society has an issue with him being a repeat offender then longer jail sentences should be imposed but NEVER should his constitutional right be able to be removed or taken from him or anyone regardless of their actions or crimes.

Once you allow infringements for any reason such as repeat crimes then that slippery slope is a MF and you cant turn back. Then other cases or situations will be allowed under an infringement clause and the next thing you know is everyone will be subject to clauses on gun ownership essentially voiding the 2nd amendment.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #3727  
Old 01-08-2013, 02:08 AM
drak drak is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5150 View Post
See the problem here is not removing this Repeat offenders constitutional rights to have a gun, but rather the failure (or problem) is the criminal justice system that has allowed such a repeat offender to be released back to the streets if the person is not rehabilitated or able to understand his actions.

The argument continues that if the offender has served his time from the previous crimes he has committed then he has paid his debt to society and should be allowed to have his guns back (even if he is a "repeat" offender) if he has served his time in each of his cases. If society has an issue with him being a repeat offender then longer jail sentences should be imposed but NEVER should his constitutional right be able to be removed or taken from him or anyone regardless of their actions or crimes.

Once you allow infringements for any reason such as repeat crimes then that slippery slope is a MF and you cant turn back. Then other cases or situations will be allowed under an infringement clause and the next thing you know is everyone will be subject to clauses on gun ownership essentially voiding the 2nd amendment.
I agree 100%.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #3728  
Old 01-08-2013, 02:13 AM
Mad Scientist Mad Scientist is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Illinois
Posts: 563
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5150 View Post
See the problem here is not removing this Repeat offenders constitutional rights to have a gun, but rather the failure (or problem) is the criminal justice system that has allowed such a repeat offender to be released back to the streets if the person is not rehabilitated or able to understand his actions.
OK that makes sense.
But dealing with an individuals rights can be tricky. How long should a particular sentence be? How should it be determined? If after the sentence is served what if the individual is deemed not fit to be returned to society? Who would decide this and how might that be done? Might this be worse then saying ok you are allowed to go but you will not be allowed to have a gun?
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #3729  
Old 01-08-2013, 02:29 AM
5150's Avatar
5150 5150 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Near downtown
Posts: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Scientist View Post
OK that makes sense.
But dealing with an individuals rights can be tricky. How long should a particular sentence be? How should it be determined? If after the sentence is served what if the individual is deemed not fit to be returned to society? Who would decide this and how might that be done? Might this be worse then saying ok you are allowed to go but you will not be allowed to have a gun?

Any sentence is up to a judge and once that sentence is set regardless how long or short then it needs to be respected and when the person is released then they still have their constitutional rights.

If they have served their sentence and a person is deemed not fit then they need not be released or sent to a mental hospital where they are confined. If they are not fit to be on the streets or fit to have a gun then they are not fit to be free... its just that simple.

NEVER should anyone's god given rights be removed or restricted if they are fit enough to be on the street.

as for how is such commitments done, well just read up on mental / psychiatry commitments in general. They are doing those now for sex offenders who after they serve their criminal jail sentence they are held and remanded to mental hospitals and not released due to the court finding them unfit to be on the street.

The Supreme Court has upheld these indefinite detentions as constitutional even though the person has not committed another crime. In essence its to prevent further crimes from occurring. So many people are in total agreement on this but again that slippery slope has been entered and now its a mess. The Ex-marine who posted on facebook his disdain with the government was taken in on a similar psychiatric hold they use on sex offenders and it wasn't until a huge uproar that he was finally released.

Never did they correct the fact they can legally do this, they just released this guy due to media pressure but others are in his same situation. This is the thing that scares me the most. I fear that one day that my anti government rants and pro gun positions for criminals will land me another one of these free psychiatric holds

then it will be your turn
__________________
 

Last edited by 5150; 01-08-2013 at 02:36 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #3730  
Old 01-08-2013, 02:37 PM
dutchdivco dutchdivco is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,000
In MOST Jurisdictions,

I THINK all, in the U.S., but i haven't researched it, a convicted felon, who 'serves their sentence', and their parole, can petition the court for a restoration of their rights; they write a letter to the sentencing court, requesting restoration of their rights, and its usually 'pro-forma'; that is its normally granted. This is a 'complete' restoration; they can vote, own a gun, etc.
it is perhaps an agknowledgement that they hyave shown, by their actions, that they have been 're-habilitated', and are able to function in society.

And i agree on the 'slippery-slope' argument. NOW gun control activists are saying ban assault weapons. Then, their will be a jerry Lfner kind of attack, (where he used a pistol), and they will say 'pistols aren't for HUNTING, they are only made for killing people, lets ban them! Then, their will be an incident like the first 'rage' killing, the famed Texas Towers incident, in which the shooter used hunting rifles, and they will want to ban them.

Out of curiosity, I did a google search; 'school shootings' found 22 'incidents', (since the 'gun-free school zone' was enacted), plus numerous other incidents of guns being confiscated, that did NOT involve actual shootings.
Then, I googled 'Gun SHOW shootings. One would think, with 10's of thousands of people (perhaps 100's of thousands, nationwide, per year)attending guns shows, and MOST of them armed, that there would be LOTS!

I found 1 incident of a man, reportedly a dealer, accidentally shooting himself in the hand. And, tragically, one incident of an 8 y.o. boy shooting himself with an Uzi, while his father video taped it.If his father had been properly supervising, instead of video-taping,....). No instances of any nutjob going in to do an Aurora Colo. or Sandy Hook 'mass killing',....Gee, I wonder why?

The latest I hear is that Sen. Fienstien is advocating a National, Federal database of all gun owners; she's coming out and showing her 'true colors' and 'true agenda', and, like many fanatics, over-reaching.

Anyway, there already IS a mechanism, in the system, for those who have been convicted of a felony, to get their rights restored; serve your time, and keep 'clean' when you get out.

The 'criminal justice system' sucks, in so many ways. As 5150 pointed out, ANY felony conviction results in a loss of rights. In addition, prosecuters, mindful of conviction rates, will often plea-bargain Felonies down to misdemeanors, rather than go to trial. So, its entirely possible that you could have someone convicted of possesion of Pot, (say), who as a 'felon' can't own a gun, or vote, etc. And someone else who engaged in an armed robbery, but with questionable witnesses, etc. and so is 'plea-bargained' to some misdemeanor charge, who retains their rights.

There is no 'Justice' in our 'Justice' system; its only one of many 'systems' we have developed, which is broken.

They just reached a settelment with the Big banks, on mortgage,....well, fraud. I saw a detailed 'explanation'; basically, they started out reviewing EVERY case in which the banks repo'd a house, in an attempt to detirmine which cases the banks engaged in wrongdoing, and how much $ the homeowner was 'screwed' out of; at a certain point, they 'gave up', realising that was 'impractical', and so just negotiated an amount; so, if you commit a big enough crime, with enough victims, you can get away with a wrist-slap.

The whole system is corrupt, from top to bottom, and eventually I have to believe it will collapse of its own weight! I realy should be more like Rick, and stop watching TV; I'm sure it would do wonders for my Blood pressure!Jim
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #3731  
Old 01-08-2013, 03:53 PM
5150's Avatar
5150 5150 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Near downtown
Posts: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by dutchdivco View Post

Anyway, there already IS a mechanism, in the system, for those who have been convicted of a felony, to get their rights restored; serve your time, and keep 'clean' when you get out.
see you miss the fact that if you have to ask for permission to have your rights restored then they are not really rights, rather they are simply permission.

There should NEVER be any situation where any persons "rights' are revoked or infringed. again if they commit a crime or have mental issues then lock them up and restrict their access to society but NEVER strip them of their god given rights!
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #3732  
Old 01-08-2013, 05:08 PM
rickoff's Avatar
rickoff rickoff is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maine, USA
Posts: 3,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5150 View Post
see you miss the fact that if you have to ask for permission to have your rights restored then they are not really rights, rather they are simply permission.

There should NEVER be any situation where any persons "rights' are revoked or infringed. again if they commit a crime or have mental issues then lock them up and restrict their access to society but NEVER strip them of their god given rights!
I agree with you, in that the Founders recognized that we, as free men, all have God-given rights which shall not be taken away by other men. If we do wrong and are justly imprisoned for what we have done, we are no longer free, while imprisoned, to claim certain of those rights. When released after serving a full term of imprisonment, it should be considered that we are free men once again, and our rights should be fully restored.

If, on the other hand, an imposed sentence is shortened, and a prisoner is released on a probationary basis where the prisoner agrees to prove their worthiness for such release by abstaining from being involved in any activities not authorized, I would not consider that a deprivation of rights, but rather a common sense agreement.
__________________
"Seek wisdom by keeping an open mind to alternative realities, questioning authority, and searching for truth. Only then, when you see or hear something that has 'the ring of truth' to it, will it be as if a veil has been lifted, and suddenly you will begin to hear and see far more clearly than ever before." - Rickoff
Reply With Quote
  #3733  
Old 01-08-2013, 05:32 PM
5150's Avatar
5150 5150 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Near downtown
Posts: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickoff View Post
if, on the other hand, an imposed sentence is shortened, and a prisoner is released on a probationary basis where the prisoner agrees to prove their worthiness for such release by abstaining from being involved in any activities not authorized, I would not consider that a deprivation of rights, but rather a common sense agreement.
yes but are you saying that those activities which are restricted would include not owning or possessing a firearm for self protection? I mean I'm sure you would feel that the person not having a gun would be a common sense agreement unless that person was you and you felt a firearm was a self defense issue.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #3734  
Old 01-08-2013, 05:53 PM
rickoff's Avatar
rickoff rickoff is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maine, USA
Posts: 3,302
Some time ago I said that we should not be surprised to see Barry attempt to run for a third, or even a continual term of office, and now I see that attempt has just been introduced in Congress by U.S. Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y. as House joint Resolution 15, which would repeal the 22nd Amendment. That Amendment , passed by Congress in 1947, and ratified by the states in 1951, established a two-term limit for all US Presidents, and states, the following:
Quote:
“No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice, and no person who has held the office of president, or acted as president, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected president shall be elected to the office of the president more than once.”

The reason why this became necessary is that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was allowed to be reelected to a third and fourth term of office.

Previous to the Amendment, nearly all presidents honored the two term limit which George Washington had imposed upon himself as being reasonable and appropriate. If this current attempt is successful, then Barry could obviously remain a resident of the White House for several more terms, resulting in a virtual dictatorship. Being allowed a second term he was ineligible for was bad enough, but this move to permanently retain that office is outrageous. If this is allowed to pass then all sanity and reason flies right out the window. A previous attempt in 2009 (H.J.R. 5) to repeal the 22nd Amendment was unsuccessful, but I wouldn't count on that being the case this time around.
__________________
"Seek wisdom by keeping an open mind to alternative realities, questioning authority, and searching for truth. Only then, when you see or hear something that has 'the ring of truth' to it, will it be as if a veil has been lifted, and suddenly you will begin to hear and see far more clearly than ever before." - Rickoff
Reply With Quote
  #3735  
Old 01-09-2013, 02:50 PM
dutchdivco dutchdivco is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,000
Rick and 5150

If such a resolution, to repeal the 22nd amendment, needs to 'pass' the house, I very seriosly doubt it will pass.

On 'rights' of convicted felons; once someone (THEORETICALLY) after 'due process' has been convicted of a felony, and is incarcerated, they lose virtually ALL their rights, God given or not, WHILE they are incarcewrated, as I know you know, from personal experience.

They cannot even refuse to take medication, as the 'state' is obligated to provide them medical care.Certainly, they lose the right to keep and bear, and most would agree 'we' don't want prisoners 'armed' (not that they don't make 'shivs', etc.
The question then becomes when, and under what mechanism they have these rights restored, once they have 'served their debt to society'.

I seem to recall from my time behind bars, that you CAN elect to NOT be released on 'parole', and instead to serve out your 'full sentence', so the WHEN youare released, you are NOT 'on parole'; some (while I was 'in' elected to do this, after seeing how many who were released on parole returned within weeks, for some petty violation.

I would agree with Rick, 'early release' with parole is one thing, but serving your 'full sentence' SHOULD result in an 'automatic' restoration of rights. I'm not familiar enough with the mechanism of rights restoration of felons to know; its possible that IF someone served their full sentence and was releasewd without parole, whether they could immediately petition the cpourt for restoration of their rights.

Having gone thru the process, I don't have a major problem with having to 'ask'; if you have, by your previous behavior, exibited a clear disregard for the 'rules of society' i.e. committed and been convicted of a felony, you've shown a disregard for the rights of others, hence society takes away your freedom, along with your other rights, for a period of time. Its not unreasonable (to me) that their be some kind of 'process' for restoration of rights.

The 'Justice' system is far from perfect; there is LITTLE 'Justice' (in the 'Justice' system)for perpetrators, victims or society; its simply what we have.I suppose, like Democracy, it 'sucks', but beats the alternative? The Civil 'Justice' system is eaqually flawed, as I alluded to earlier.

Rob someone at gunpoint, of their hard earned $, and IF you are caught, you do the time. Rob 100's of thousands of people, of their houses, (thru clearly and blatantly illegal foreclosure practices), and you pay a small fine, as the 'cost of doing business', and even continue the illegal practices.

I learned an interesting mental 'device', sometime back; if you alter the name of any Gov't agency, to make the meaning the opposite, you will USUALLY be MUCH closer to the truth; The Dept of Social IN Security, The Dept of IN Justice, etc.

Rick quotes the founders, a lot; IF they were alive today, they would all be in Jail, under indefinite detention, as their radial actions and statements would CLEARLY be seen as a threat to our current Gov't.Jim
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #3736  
Old 01-09-2013, 07:12 PM
5150's Avatar
5150 5150 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Near downtown
Posts: 273
@ Dutchdivco

I agree with you that the 22nd amendment will not pass the house and it will never be put into law legally. What I can see happening is the democrats supporting some backing of a presidential order which would allow this to pass although it would be shot down by many republicans while the masses of voters and dems would scream for this to happen.

I could care less either way as I am convinced Washington is on its last legs and there will soon be a civil war like none other in the history of the world.
Now regarding criminals /felons and the argument of their lost “rights” I would have to say you are again seeing it differently than I do. Being convicted of a crime and incarcerated does not (or should NEVER) result in the loss of anyone rights by any means. I have no issue with an inmate not being able to have a gun while in jail and that’s just a given but even while in jail they should still have their god given rights. They will forgo having a weapon due to the nature of being confined but once they are released they should have the right to vote and the right to carry a gun and do whatever they want others are as long as they are not hurting others.

As for saying because a person commits a felony that they are showing a disregard for the rights of others, well I totally disagree. A felony can be simply an amount of drugs you have in possession or the fact you are selling them to another person who wants to buy them and the only disregard the person is showing is to the actual laws against such activity. But it’s ok for the big tobacco companies to sell poison and the pharmaceutical companies to push dangerous drugs that mess up people yet this is alright simply because the *****s in congress have been greased and bought like a common street *****s.
You mentioned


Quote:
Rob someone at gunpoint, of their hard earned $, and IF you are caught, you do the time. Rob 100's of thousands of people, of their houses, (thru clearly and blatantly illegal foreclosure practices), and you pay a small fine, as the 'cost of doing business', and even continue the illegal practices.


This is about how hypocritical the entire government system is from top to bottom. With all the laws and BS out there anything is a crime these days yet what the government does is a cartel or criminal activity and they are never held accountable for their actions. IMO the US Government is the largest criminal axis of evil and real time threat to world peace and stability.

I myself have no problem being labeled a criminal or called a felon because at least we all know where I stand. (Well I do have a problem with it but what I mean is that) I am not afraid to break a law that I feel the law is unjust or disadvantageous to me while the government commits similar or grater acts of crime.

You will never see me hurting innocent others or stealing something that isn’t mine but you will see me using natural drugs (pot) and having a gun to protect myself and many other things that I consider my personal god given rights regardless of what any law says. You will see the US government illegally invading other sovereign nations and killing their people like a plague of serial killers who have no morals while proclaiming to spread Christian democracy and freedoms while stealing natural resources and establishing more “Central Banks”

I could go on and on but what’s the point.

The day or reckoning is coming to the USA and especially the US government and we all know it, I just hope I’m far away when it unfolds as its going to be nasty and a lot of people are going to rightfully die.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #3737  
Old 01-09-2013, 11:30 PM
rickoff's Avatar
rickoff rickoff is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maine, USA
Posts: 3,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by dutchdivco View Post
If such a resolution, to repeal the 22nd amendment, needs to 'pass' the house, I very seriously doubt it will pass.
Had there not been so many blatantly unconstitutional actions by the "government" during the past several years I too would seriously doubt this resolution could pass the House. Just look at how the House Republicans, under Boehner, have caved in to Barry and the Democrats on just about everything. It really wouldn't surprise me to see this pass in Congress, though I would hope that the state legislatures still retain enough sanity to not ratify this repeal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dutchdivco View Post
Rick quotes the founders, a lot; IF they were alive today, they would all be in Jail, under indefinite detention, as their radical actions and statements would CLEARLY be seen as a threat to our current Gov't.
Yes, that's quite true. The British considered the Founders to be a group of radicals, and the current "government" would think of them in the same way. Actually, they would probably be considered terrorists.
__________________
"Seek wisdom by keeping an open mind to alternative realities, questioning authority, and searching for truth. Only then, when you see or hear something that has 'the ring of truth' to it, will it be as if a veil has been lifted, and suddenly you will begin to hear and see far more clearly than ever before." - Rickoff

Last edited by rickoff; 01-09-2013 at 11:34 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3738  
Old 01-10-2013, 12:34 AM
rickoff's Avatar
rickoff rickoff is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maine, USA
Posts: 3,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5150 View Post
yes but are you saying that those activities which are restricted would include not owning or possessing a firearm for self protection? I mean I'm sure you would feel that the person not having a gun would be a common sense agreement unless that person was you and you felt a firearm was a self defense issue.
Yes, I think that's a reasonable restriction for a felon out on parole. And there are other ways to protect yourself than with a firearm. I'm sure you could keep a baseball bat in your room to defend against an intruder, or even carry one out on the street without it being a parole violation, right? Who's going to arrest you for carrying a bat and being on your way to play a little baseball? Remember the movie, "Walking Tall?" That was based on the true story of Buford Pusser, a man who became a sheriff, and therefore had access to all sorts of firearms, but his weapon of choice in going up against thugs out to do him harm was a baseball bat. He quickly became a legend for his artful and devastating use of the baseball bat. Buford went up against people bearing guns and knives, and was stabbed 7 times and shot 8 times, but didn't die from those wounds. Nope, he died from crashing his Corvette into an embankment, while driving with a .18 blood alcohol level, and was ejected from the vehicle.
__________________
"Seek wisdom by keeping an open mind to alternative realities, questioning authority, and searching for truth. Only then, when you see or hear something that has 'the ring of truth' to it, will it be as if a veil has been lifted, and suddenly you will begin to hear and see far more clearly than ever before." - Rickoff
Reply With Quote
  #3739  
Old 01-10-2013, 02:41 AM
wayne.ct wayne.ct is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 515
Law Breakers' Reward

I think the idea that you should be convicted of a crime and then expect full rights of citizenship to be automatically restored is just so much nonsense. Why should a law breaker expect that level of forgiveness? Human experience does not justify that level of trust from a known law breaker. The idea is the height of foolishness, in my opinion. If after a believable demonstration of trustworthiness a person convinces the authorities that the rehabilitation is complete, that would be the determination of the authority. There can be nothing AUTOMATIC about the process. The basic problem is the ethics and morality of the authorities making these heavy decisions. Unfortunately the current crop of authorities have shown themselves to be untrustworthy themselves. This seems to be true of the majority if not for the entire lot. Why, for example, do they not impeach the crooks, criminals, thieves and liars when their character is revealed. Some people have lost their ability to think straight.
__________________
 

Last edited by wayne.ct; 01-10-2013 at 02:43 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #3740  
Old 01-10-2013, 03:56 AM
aljhoa aljhoa is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,168
Generally people are born sweet and innocent, and are not automatically wired to commit crimes, or exhibit unacceptable behavior. It is Society and Undesirable Circumstances that create criminals. Of course there are those rare cases when an individual has always been off. The human being is a social animal, and a delicate and sensitive creature that prospers in a healthy environment, who can do a world of good throughout their lives. Healthy, as in, a place where all needs are met beginning at birth, throughout childhood, adolescence, and adulthood on up until death. These in this category are a rarity.
Criminals Are the Product of Society

Asteroid 2012 DA14 Close Approach 02/15/2013 - YouTube

Al
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #3741  
Old 01-10-2013, 05:02 AM
Mad Scientist Mad Scientist is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Illinois
Posts: 563
Here is an article supporting the 2nd. Amendment from a most unlike source.


Americans never give up your guns - English pravda.ru
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #3742  
Old 01-10-2013, 07:22 PM
rickoff's Avatar
rickoff rickoff is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maine, USA
Posts: 3,302
That's an excellent article, MS. Thanks for the link. I often see stories written by people who came to the US after experiencing loss of freedoms at the hands of a tyrannical government, and one thing about their stories is always the same. They see the same things happening here which they had lived through - the same things that led to loss of individual rights. All of those things were promoted to the people as making them safer, healthier, happier, and more prosperous, but the end result was that these interventions and changes had the exact opposite effect. The same things that destroyed liberty and prosperity in these other nations have been slowly creeping into the United States over the past 100 years, and now that most of their agenda is already completed the PTB are moving ahead at full speed to finish the job and reach their final goals - total power over a dumbed down and enslaved population which has no ability to defend themselves or retaliate. Disarming the citizenry brings the PTB very close to the final step to gaining absolute power over them. The final step, of course, would be to round up the disarmed citizens, strip them of all their land and possessions, and lock them away in slave labor FEMA camps until such time as they become "useless eaters," whereupon they would be quietly disposed of. Those who think that these things could never happen here are simply living in a fantasy world and not paying attention to history or the telltale signs of what is coming.
__________________
"Seek wisdom by keeping an open mind to alternative realities, questioning authority, and searching for truth. Only then, when you see or hear something that has 'the ring of truth' to it, will it be as if a veil has been lifted, and suddenly you will begin to hear and see far more clearly than ever before." - Rickoff
Reply With Quote
  #3743  
Old 01-10-2013, 08:15 PM
rickoff's Avatar
rickoff rickoff is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maine, USA
Posts: 3,302
You may have heard this already, but a White House petition calling for the deportation of CNN news anchor Piers Morgan for his attacks against the Constitution's 2nd Amendment was initiated by Alex Jones, and in a short period of time had gained over 104,000 signatures. Piers is a British citizen living in the United States, and has been very actively promoting gun control in the US on his evening TV news show ever since the Sandy Hook incident. Piers invited Alex to appear on his show, and what resulted is now available for viewing on video. We all know that Alex can get quite emotional and gruff, and doesn't mince words. Well after the interview, Piers has been repeatedly playing a segment Where Alex gets quite agitated and loudly declares, while shaking his arm near Piers' face, that "1776 will commence again if you try to take away our guns." Obviously this was a reference to the fact that what happened here in 1776 was in large part due to the fact that the British were planning to disarm the colonists. I think Alex did the right thing in demanding that Piers be deported. Any foreign citizen who comes to our country and openly advocates for overturning anything within our Bill of Rights should be leaving on the first plane out of here, and every government official who swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution should consider it their duty to ensure that. Instead, the White House answered the petition by basically saying that Freedom of Speech, as also guaranteed by the Constitution under the First Amendment, somehow trumps the oath to protect and defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Of course that's the kind of response we should expect from an administration which shreds the Constitution at every opportunity. Also, whoever wrote the administration's response to the petition appears to be oblivious to the fact that, under legal precedent, non-US citizens do not have First Amendment rights.
__________________
"Seek wisdom by keeping an open mind to alternative realities, questioning authority, and searching for truth. Only then, when you see or hear something that has 'the ring of truth' to it, will it be as if a veil has been lifted, and suddenly you will begin to hear and see far more clearly than ever before." - Rickoff

Last edited by rickoff; 01-11-2013 at 12:16 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #3744  
Old 01-11-2013, 01:34 AM
rickoff's Avatar
rickoff rickoff is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maine, USA
Posts: 3,302
Lately there has been talk of the possibility of the US Mint producing a trillion dollar platinum coin, delivering it to the Federal Reserve, and having the Fed move the "money" to the US Treasury where it can be used to pay government obligations debt free. To many people this sounds like an idiotic fantasy, and something that just couldn't be done. After all, platinum has a precious metals value that is quite high, but how could a platinum coin that a person could hold in their hand possibly be worth a trillion dollars? Well, the answer is that it doesn't matter. The Constitution gives Congress the power to mint coins, and to establish the value of those coins. Some coins currently minted cost more to mint than their face value, while others are actually worth less than their face value. Under a loophole in the law, Congress has the authority to mint platinum coins and assign virtually any face value to them. Frankly, I like the idea, except for the fact that the Federal Reserve would be involved. Why not mint the coin and deliver it directly to the Treasury? Perhaps the problem is that the Fed would need to "break" the platinum coin down into lower denomination currency or credits to issue to the Treasury. The argument could be made that whomever is owed a very large debt (like China, for example) would be foolish to accept a trillion dollar coin, but why wouldn't they? They have always accepted Federal Reserve Notes, which in actuality have no value whatsoever.

I have consistently said that the real answer to our nation's fiscal dilemma is to have Congress coin money as directed by the Constitution. The only problem I see with this idea of minting a 1 trillion dollar coin is that it simply doesn't go far enough. Barry is contemplating using this tactic, by executive order, to continue his spending spree if Republicans won't agree to raising the debt ceiling two months down the road. Why think so small, though? Why not mint 500 of these coins, about half of which could be used to totally eradicate the true national debt of 16.4 trillion plus 224 trillion in unfunded liabilities? The remainder could be used as needed to fund infrastructure projects all over the United States, provide free healthcare to all US citizens, and to develop renewable energy technologies which the People would own and have the right to replicate and use as they see fit. And there would be plenty left over in the stash, so there would be no need to collect any revenues from the People through taxation. Who could possibly be against such a plan, and if they were then why, unless they are one of the Ruling Class banksters or a puppet of the Ruling Class elite? The argument I keep hearing presented is that minting any quantity of trillion dollar coins would render the dollar worthless, but what the heck - it already is worthless.
__________________
"Seek wisdom by keeping an open mind to alternative realities, questioning authority, and searching for truth. Only then, when you see or hear something that has 'the ring of truth' to it, will it be as if a veil has been lifted, and suddenly you will begin to hear and see far more clearly than ever before." - Rickoff

Last edited by rickoff; 01-11-2013 at 01:44 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #3745  
Old 01-11-2013, 08:00 AM
jdodson's Avatar
jdodson jdodson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 183
Just heard on the radio (I think its coast 2 coast AM), a woman in Colorado was pulled over, the police found that she was carrying $20,000 in cash. They seized her money. She got an attorney and proved that she had earned that money (it was her savings). Two years later she has still not gotten it back. Apparently the law is that if you are found with 10 thousand dollars or more, it is required that YOU must prove that you earned it legitimately just to legally carry it. They can hold it indefinitely.

What happened to our rights! We cant even carry our OWN hard earned money.
Freedom is just the illusion.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #3746  
Old 01-11-2013, 03:30 PM
rickoff's Avatar
rickoff rickoff is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maine, USA
Posts: 3,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdodson View Post
Just heard on the radio (I think its coast 2 coast AM), a woman in Colorado was pulled over, the police found that she was carrying $20,000 in cash. They seized her money. She got an attorney and proved that she had earned that money (it was her savings). Two years later she has still not gotten it back. Apparently the law is that if you are found with 10 thousand dollars or more, it is required that YOU must prove that you earned it legitimately just to legally carry it. They can hold it indefinitely.

What happened to our rights! We cant even carry our OWN hard earned money.
Freedom is just the illusion.
That may be a rebroadcast of a show from several years ago, as I can remember hearing of this, or a similar incident, quite some time ago. I used to listen to CtoC whenever I was driving home from work in the early AM hours, but I've been retired for 5 years now. While most people would consider the story too far fetched to possibly be true, and while I have my own doubts concerning the claim that the money was never returned despite the driver having proved it was money she had earned, I would not suggest that the story is beyond being believable. I'm wondering, though, why she was stopped, and why the officer thought he had reasonable cause to search her vehicle, in the first place. Can you provide a link to an actual news story on this incident, or at least a link to the CtoC website page where the story is mentioned? I have tried doing a key words search for the story, but when searching for web pages having all the words "Colorado," "woman," "police," and "$20,000," found there were about 40,000 results, so didn't see any point in combing through all of that.
__________________
"Seek wisdom by keeping an open mind to alternative realities, questioning authority, and searching for truth. Only then, when you see or hear something that has 'the ring of truth' to it, will it be as if a veil has been lifted, and suddenly you will begin to hear and see far more clearly than ever before." - Rickoff
Reply With Quote
  #3747  
Old 01-11-2013, 04:27 PM
rickoff's Avatar
rickoff rickoff is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maine, USA
Posts: 3,302
Quotable quote of the day

While I often quote what the Founders had to say about various topics, sometimes I include notable quotes from persons whose views are opposed to those of the Founders, and the following quote is such an example:

Quote:
"The president is going to act. There are executive orders, executive action that can be taken. We haven't decided what that is yet. But we're compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and all the rest of the cabinet members, as well as legislative action we believe is required." - Vice President Biden, speaking briefly before a meeting with gun safety and gun victims' groups Wednesday, January 9th.
To me, it is very clear from what Joe Biden said, that Barry definitely will take some kind of unilateral action by executive order to diminish 2nd Amendment rights, while pursuing further gun control goals through proposed legislative action.

In the latest school shooting to emerge in the news, a youngster took what I understand was a 12 gauge shotgun to his school and shot a student before being disarmed by a couple of adults who were on the scene and took quick action to prevent further injuries. This is no doubt the craziest story yet to surface, since the boy had been kicked out of the school a year ago after it was learned that he had prepared a hit list of students that he had planned to kill. Despite this evidence of his deranged mentality, and his obvious intent to cause serious injury or death to others, he was deemed fit to be readmitted to the school just recently! Why did those with the authority to make that decision consider that the boy should have a right to return to the school, or that any right he may have been entitled to trumped the rights of the teachers and other students to feel safe and protected from a boy who had threatened violence against them? Whoever was involved in promoting that idea, or granting such permission, should lose their job and be held directly accountable for any and all damages resulting from this incident. Of course that will probably never happen, and the persons involved will probably be excused of any wrongdoing, quietly shuttled off to a different locale, and receive a promotion. That's how things seem to work these days.


__________________
"Seek wisdom by keeping an open mind to alternative realities, questioning authority, and searching for truth. Only then, when you see or hear something that has 'the ring of truth' to it, will it be as if a veil has been lifted, and suddenly you will begin to hear and see far more clearly than ever before." - Rickoff
Reply With Quote
  #3748  
Old 01-11-2013, 06:06 PM
FuzzyTomCat's Avatar
FuzzyTomCat FuzzyTomCat is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 620
Send a message via Skype™ to FuzzyTomCat
Subliminal Messages

WARNING !! .... I know but others may not, that it is illegal to use Subliminal messages in advertising products in the United States also it is "ONLY" a deceptive practice to use this tactic on one without their knowledge of it and is an invasion of privacy at the very least.There are numerous legislation that prohibit advertisers from using subliminal messages in their ads. The FTC (Federal Trade Commission) Act Sec 5 – “prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in interstate commerce.” The TV Code of the National Association of Broadcasters (IV, 14) states: “Any technique whereby an attempt is made to convey information to the viewer by transmitting messages below the threshold of normal awareness is not permitted.” The most potentially effective regulation is made by the U.S. Treasury Department, Division of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF). It states: "Subliminals are inherently deceptive because the consumer does not perceive them at a normal level of awareness, and thus is given no choice whether to accept or reject the message, as is the case with normal advertising. ATF holds that this type of advertising technique is false and deceptive, and is prohibited by law".

When researching the existing United States Laws on using "Subliminal Stimuli" [ Subliminal stimuli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ] they haven't been up-dated for about 30 years "specifically" for the internet in any YouTube type videos, Live Streaming Broadcasting's or Private, Corporate and Organizational DVD's (non-commence type - lifestyle, political, etc.) Recordings having _ "NO LAWS"_ on Subliminal usage especially for personal or political agendas.

So, next time you view that YouTube or official US Government web site "video" even that DVD you just downloaded remember these words "Mind Control" and "Brain Washing" .... it can come in many flavors.

Regards,
Glen
__________________
Open Source Experimentalist
Open Source Research and Development
Reply With Quote
  #3749  
Old 01-11-2013, 06:13 PM
aljhoa aljhoa is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyTomCat View Post
So, next time you view that YouTube or official US Government web site "video" even that DVD you just downloaded remember these words "Mind Control" and "Brain Washing" .... it can come in many flavors.
Pink Floyd Mother With Lyrics - YouTube

Al
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #3750  
Old 01-12-2013, 06:50 AM
FuzzyTomCat's Avatar
FuzzyTomCat FuzzyTomCat is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 620
Send a message via Skype™ to FuzzyTomCat
Arrow We Petition the Obama Administration

Howdy Members and Guests,

For your review .......


We Petition the Obama Administration to:

Perform an assayed public audit of all the Treasury's claimed 8,100 tons of gold and net of swaps, loans & sales.

As of 12/31/2012 the US Treasury claims to hold 261 million ounces of gold at Denver, Fort Knox, West Point and at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. This bullion was last subjected to a full physical audit in 1953. The gold bars need to be assayed and weighed. Once the gold is verified the paper trail must be audited to determine who really owns the gold; i.e. how much has been loaned to bankers and dealers and sold or swapped to non-Treasury entities including foreign governments. The audit must include professional auditors outside of the Mint, Treasury, GAO, Inspector General and Federal Reserve system.

Created: Jan 09, 2013
Issues: Budget and Taxes, Economy, Government Reform


Signatures needed by February 08, 2013 to reach goal of 25,000
23,065
Total signatures on this petition (Friday, January 11, 2013 at 10:47:45 PM PST)
1,935


https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...sales/rGyFTLwD (register and sign "link")


Regards,
Glen
__________________
Open Source Experimentalist
Open Source Research and Development
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Please consider supporting Energetic Forum with a voluntary monthly subscription.

For One-Time Donations, use admin@ this domain > energeticforum.com

Choose your voluntary subscription

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

Tesla Chargers