Actually I was preparing, earlier, to write something about Mitt Romney, and had used a forum search on the words "Romney" and "Mexico" to find a post I had written back in January concerning Mitt's father having been born in Mexico. I was then interrupted, and lost my train of thought. When I came back to the computer later on, I noticed the post of yours that I quoted from, but didn't notice the posting date, so mistakenly thought it was something you had just written and felt it deserved a response. So that's how it happened.

No, he is neither our President nor is he Obama. Let me explain. First of all, he is clearly not the President of the United States of America, because he is ineligible to hold that office. Secondly, even if Barry had been constitutionally eligible and had won in a verifiable, clean election, he would still not be a legitimate President of the United States of America for the simple reason that it requires a lawful Senate to confirm an Electoral College vote for President and Vice President, and a lawful Senate has not been seated since 1912. The 17th Amendment, which was never properly ratified, and which was also in direct violation of the method of seating Senators as defined in Article 1 , Section 3 of the Constitution, is the reason why, from 1916 on, our original jurisdiction government ceased to exist. Those persons seated as Senators, Presidents, or Vice Presidents, had no authority whatsoever other than in their capacity as officers of Corporation U.S. If this is not readily understood by anyone, I suggest reading post #1954 on page 66 of this thread.

As to Barry calling himself Obama, that too would appear unlawful since there is no record of Barry ever legally changing his name from Barry Soetoro back to Barack Obama.

I always thought so too. Is there any reason you can think of why we would not be?

Every thing is fine....go back to sleep America....your government has everything under control---Bill Hicks

Today I passed a truck going south from Asheville, NC
It was loaded with FEMA caskets
A mile in front of that truck was a flatbed with three APCs

Nothing to be concerned with.



Orion

45 Signs That China Is Colonizing America

Jenna, I know your heart is breaking, you know I'm not the one who's taking you down, I'm not taking you down.-
:
Whoah, Whoah,
-Having Molotov Cocktails in my bed, just trying to get this outta my head!
Whoah, Whoah.
-We lost the path, we lost the way, Tao-te ching- I can't translate!
Darren Farris - Jenna (Your Guru is Dead) - YouTube


The following are 45 signs that China is colonizing America….
#1 It was recently announced that China’s Dalian Wanda Group has bought U.S. movie theater chain AMC Entertainment for a whopping 2.6 billion dollars. This deal represents China’s biggest corporate takeover of a U.S. firm ever.
#2 Earlier this month, the Federal Reserve announced that it has given approval for banks owned by the Chinese government to buy stakes in U.S.-owned banks.
:
#44 One economist is projecting that the Chinese economy will be three times larger than the U.S. economy by the year 2040.
#45 China now holds approximately 1.17 trillion dollars of U.S. government debt. If you were alive back when Jesus was born and you had spent a million dollars every single day since then, you still would not have spent that much money by now.
» 45 Signs That China Is Colonizing America Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!


-Talk of crime in the cities-
-The writings on the wall-
-Another Hollywood Break-up-
-Like that affects us all-
:
Every face, every race, all across this human place, you better stand up right now, and get yourself counted.
Liberals, conservatives, democrats, republicans, better stand up right now, you better find your common ground.Darren Farris - Psychopathic Issues (album version w/intro) - YouTube

Al

YES! Not only can you disobey them but you should, particularly any order that is in direct violation of any of the restrictions placed on government by the constitution. For example the military cannot be use for routine police work, or the random searching of individuals, or disarming citizens, etc.

Now is this an easy thing to do when you have been trained to follow orders without questioning them? Obviously not. However you are not required to follow illegal orders no matter where they come from. Of course it takes courage to stand up to a superior officer and say no that is an illegal order and I will not do that. Naturally there can be some unpleasant consequences for doing what is right. However this is something that has happen many times but it is not something that gets lots of news coverage. But just like the German generals who after WW2 used the excuse that “We were just following orders” only to find out that just following orders also can provide some very unpleasant consequences.

Any soldier can at any time choose to disobey an order which he or she knows, or at least firmly believes, is unlawful or unconstitutional, and in fact it is their duty to do so. Every soldier takes an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, so when an order is given by someone acting as Commander In Chief, but the person acting in that capacity is ineligible under the Constitution to act as POTUS and CIC, any military orders which come from that person are unlawful, unconstitutional orders. Again, it is not only a soldier's right to disobey such orders, it is the soldier's duty to do so.

Now, with that question answered, I would hope that every American serviceman and servicewoman would take this seriously and stand together to demand that Barry show full and adequate proof of his constitutional eligibility to sit as President and issue orders as CIC. Unfortunately, though, only a few brave souls have, so far, dared to take such a stand. One such person is Lt Colonel Terry Lakin, who ended up going to prison and being dishonorably discharged. Lakin did the right thing, and sufferred the consequences of a military court martial at which he was neither allowed to present evidence, or a defense on his behalf, and his request for discovery items (pertaining to Barry's eligibility status) was refused. I don't know how you feel about what happened to Terry Lakin, but my feeling is that this was a travesty of justice. The administration used Lakin's case to set an example for all servicemen and servicewomen to understand what would likely happen to them if they followed in Lakin's footsteps and questioned Barry's authority. When the decision was read in Lakin's case, and he was remanded to prison, I wish that every American serviceman and servicewoman had stood in unity and demanded that either Lakin be given a new and fair trial or be immediately released and recognized for his honorable service to our country. Of course that didn't happen.

Like all other individuals who serve in our armed forces, you will have to decide what your course of action will be when you are confronted with a situation which you either know, or at least firmly believe, is immoral, unjust, unlawful, and/or unconstitutional. I know it can be a tough balancing act and dilemma to have to decide between what is best for your career and your family on the one hand, and on the other hand what is known in your mind and heart to be the choice you would make if your career, your family, and your freedom were not at stake. If all would stand together for a brother in arms then justice would prevail, but when only one, or a few, are willing to take that stand then justice will be overruled by the unjust.

Incidentally, minoly, the quote wrongly attributed to me at the top of your post #2933 is actually quoting yourself.

It's just cruel.
It's also completely unnecessary.
Australia already exports chilled meat to many countries it sends live animals to.
Replacing live export with a growth in the trade of chilled meat,
humanely killed as close to the farm as possible, will benefit both animals and Australia.
Austrailia to Middle East Pt: 1/2 - YouTube

Al

Just go back to post 2933, choose to edit it, go advanced, and then either take out the misquote or edit it to show you were quoting yourself.

You can swear an oath to any person, organization, corporation, etc. What matters is that you swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. You have to decide which Constitution you are defending, though. Is it the bastardized Constitution of Corporation U.S., or is it the Constitution of the United States of America, which I always refer to as "the Constitution?" And yes, we should not even be calling those seated in Washington D.C. our "government," because they most assuredly are not. They are simply corporate officers.

As far as the armed services are concerned, the Constitution only permits standing forces in time of declared war. It does not allow for aggressive acts against other nations, nor military policing of any nation, including our own. And it certainly does not allow for the establishment and maintenance of U.S. military bases in other nations. Aside from declared war, our military mission is to be purely a defensive one and carried out by the state militias.

No, minoly, I have not. I was ineligible to serve due to chronic asthma. Had I been eligible, though, I'm not so sure that I would have volunteered to go to Vietnam, which was the conflict of my generation. I believed that we had entered that conflict under false pretenses, and that we remained there for the wrong reasons, and history has revealed that was the case. Senseless and brutal events, such as the 5 hour My Lai Massacre, carried out by the American Charlie Company under orders of their platoon leader, William Calley. Babies were bayonetted, teenage girls were raped or forced to their knees to perform sex acts before being mutilated and killed - and their watching parents and grandparents were summarily shot as they begged for mercy. When the bloodbath was over, the hamlet was torched and upwards of 500 unarmed civilian villagers were dead. And here at home, I remember the National Guard killings of four student war protesters at Kent State University as if it had happened yesterday. These and other events were extremely repulsive to a great many Americans, including myself, and the outrage that followed these events was certainly instrumental in bringing about an end to the conflict, and our withdrawal from Cambodia and Vietnam. But what did we learn from all of that? Now we are involved in two more senseless conflicts, in Afghanistan and Iraq, which began under false pretenses.

Hopefully you are stationed here in the U.S.A. and haven't had to take part in any of these unconstitutional actions. If you are involved in defending our nation here at home then I applaud you, although as I said before that is the mission of the state militias, not the federal armed services.

There's a lot of P*ssing in the wind, going on.
Firstly, if B.O. is only 'Chief Executive officer' of Corp.U.S, which only has legal authority over 10 square miles of D.C, why does anyone CARE where he was born?
And, if every President since 1916 hasn't been 'legitimate' "President of the U.S. of A", then again, who CARES about his ancestry?
On the other hand, there IS a legal concept, not sure the term. Perhaps "Cry wolf"? If your landlord sends you a letter, telling you to clean up the yard, or you'll be evicted. And you don't. They continue to send you letters every month, for YEARS, and never act on it. THEN, they start eviction, based on your failure to comply.
You CAN present a Defence, (and will probably win) that after so many years of 'accepting' (by their lack of action) the mess in the yard, they can't act on it now.
We haven't required previous Presidents to provide PROOF of eligibility, ever (apperently), OTHER than to have the Chairman/women of the Political party, write a letter to each Secretary of state, 'affirming' or 'certifying' that the Candidate meets the Constitutional requirements, and requesting that they be placed on the ballot.
So, to bring this up as an issue, NOW, with this one candidate SEEMS to be politically motivated. Especially since those who are raising this issue SEEM to be those who sharply disagree with this candidates political policies/positions.
Which is two of the reasons why those who support this candidates positions are able to dismiss these concerns as politics.
We perhaps can/should address the underlieing issue; requirements at the state level, that each Secretary of State is required to ascertain each candidate put on the ballot meets the Constitutional requirements to serve as Potus, and not simply accepting someones word for it!But I SUSPECT any attempt to get this issue to stick, against BO will probably NOT work, at least in terms of getting him 'kicked out' of office. Courts aren't going to do it, (I fear), and politicians are too scared of being 'painted' as a 'birther' for this to be pursued thru political process.
Beyond that, not sure many 'undecideds' or 'independents' in November, will be saying "I WAS going to vote for BO, but when I saw all this stuff about him NOT being a citizen, well, then I voted for the 'other guy'! (Which will be Romoney, who's Dad was born in Mexico, and policy-wise is a obama clone, anyway).

As for 'following orders', an illegitimate/illegal order, such as to commit war crimes, is something every soldier, etc. is obligated to refuse to obey.
However, refusing an order because the guy who gave an (otherwise) legitimate order, to a guy who gave that order, to a guy who gave that order, to you?
After all, unless you are in the Presidents military detail, the average soldier doesn't get orders from B.O. He/she gets them from their immediate superior; chain of command. And as long as the actual order is 'legal', i.e. not ordering you to do something which is prohibited under the Uniform code, I think you have to obey it.
So, I THINK the Joint Chiefs could MAYBE get away with refusing to accept/obey an order from B.O, but not anyone further down the chain of command. Assuming the order itself was not to do something 'illegal'.

While the military doesn't want people commiting war crimes, because they 'were just following orders', the military also doesn't want people 'choosing' to disobey orders, for such reasons as a belief the CIC may not have legal authority. Just my 'opinion', of coarse.Jim

Not quite right, Jim. Remember how it was brought up that McCain was born outside the US, and his eligibility was questioned? Of course he really wasn't eligible because of that fact, but a panel was formed to explore his eligibility, and guess who sat on the panel and signed their names affirming that McCain was in fact a "natural born citizen?" Barry and Hillary both. They were quick to affirm McCain, because if they hadn't then Barry would have been scrutinized in the same way. He wasn't vetted at all. And when Nancy Pelosi, the chairwoman of the National Democrat Party, sent out statements to each of the states' Secretary of State, affirming that Barry was eligible, she did not include mention that he was eligible under Article 2 of the Constitution, which has been the wording used in all previous elections. Obviously she knew the truth and didn't want to sign a statement that had the potential to come back and haunt her.

I understand what you are getting at. Democrats have always brushed this off as politically or racially motivated, and refuse to even glance at the evidence of Barry's ineligible status. But remember that this isn't just being brought up now. Barry's eligibility was questioned well before the 2008 election, and the issue has never gone away. It has only grown larger. The evidence of his ineligibility took a giant leap forward when Barry displayed an obviously fraudulent "birth certificate" on the White House website, claiming that it was an official photocopy of his Hawaiian birth document.

That's right, it seems that all of the Republican candidates were afraid to bring up the issue, as none of them did. But we must ask why that is. Polls show that over 60 percent of registered Republicans, and an even higher percentage of Independents, believe that Barry is not eligible, so it is way more than just a "birther" issue. Heck, the same polls showed that roughly 20% of Democrats also think that Barry might not be eligible. So with numbers like that, and mountains of solid evidence to back up a call for proof of eligibility, what are they really afraid of? What we can be sure of is that Mitt doesn't want to "rock the boat," as that would not sit well with the Bilderbergers. And by the way, the Bilderbergers are meeting right now in New York City to determine not only who will be the next president of Corporation U.S., but also to fine tune their final plan for worldwide financial ruin and chaos.

Well that's precisely the problem I've been talking about. If an order comes down telling troops to deploy to Afghanistan, Iraq, or any other country that Congress has not declared war against, then that order is illegal because it violates the Constitution, which is the supreme law of this nation.

We have been lied to (yet again).

After following Dr. Keanu Sai's work for the last 17 years, attending his talks, checking his sources, reading the historical record and his court fillings; I can say with certainty that:
According to contract law, international law, and The US Constitution, The United
States has no title to the Hawai`ian Islands and therefore there was not nor is there a
"State of Hawaii" in the Hawai`ian Islands for Barack Obama to have been born in.

The record is all at:

Hawaiian Kingdom - David Keanu Sai v. Barack Obama, et al

Check the second video.

Quite true, Poli, and a good point that has long been overlooked. We never had lawful title to the Hawaiian Islands. They were seized by us, from the native Islanders, in what amounts to nothing less than an illegal act of piracy and plunder. Furthermore, even if the U.S.A. had reached a lawful agreement with the Islanders, not under duress, to acquire the Hawaiian Islands, the approval by Congress for both Hawaii and Alaska to be given statehood was unlawful since it occurred after 1915, the last year that a lawful federal government existed, and thus Congress had no authority whatsoever to confer statehood.

Sounds like 'WE' aquired the Hawaian islands in much the same way we aquired the Continental U.S.; yeah, in many cases we signed a 'treaty' with the native peoples, but in every case we renigged!

So, the same argument would apply to someone born in the contiguos 48! LOL

"That's right, it seems that all of the Republican candidates were afraid to bring up the issue, as none of them did. But we must ask why that is. Polls show that over 60 percent of registered Republicans, and an even higher percentage of Independents, believe that Barry is not eligible, so it is way more than just a "birther" issue. Heck, the same polls showed that roughly 20% of Democrats also think that Barry might not be eligible. So with numbers like that, and mountains of solid evidence to back up a call for proof of eligibility, what are they really afraid of?"

I don't know about the Bilderburgers, (and don't really want to). But, I suspect the thing they (Repub candidates) are afraid of, is the 'reason' for Romoneys nomination; the Repub party believes this stuff about how the election will be decided by independents, and how independents don't like partisanship, or birther argument.

Hence, this is why most party people were pushing for Romoney; cause they thought he could appeal to moderates, swing voters, etc.

Personally, I think they are WRONG. U.S. has ALWAYS been a center-right country, and I think still is; I think the conservative/libertarian message, WELL ARTICULATED, will 'beat' the liberal agenda message, every time.

The key is it has to be well articulated, and the party has to be 100% behind the candidate articulating it. Goldwater lost, because the party wasn't behind him, (although he and his surrogates WERE capable of articulating the message). RP, same boat. Reagan was the exception, and (one would think) proved the premise. Unfortunatly, many in the party leadreship positions don't really believe what they profess to believe, corrupted by D.C., etc.

So, party sucks, (BOTH parties) and we get screwed! Nothing new. Jim

Because of Constitution Error, North Dakota is Not a State (and Never Has Been) | NewsFeed | TIME.com

Bilderberg Skull and Bones Pt 2 of 2 - YouTube

Fox Revives Myth That "America Is A Center-Right Country" | Media Matters for America

Al

With all due respect, has anyone read the link and watched the second video? Maybe two or three times as this is a very nuanced subject.

Hawaiian Islands were not "seized by us, from the native Islanders", but from the 43 years recognized, with numerous international consulates, constitutional Hawaiian Government.

After the seizure the United States negotiated a settlement not with the self‐proclaimed government who committed the crime of high treason, but with Queen Lili`uokalani.

"The Lili`uokalani assignment legally bound President Cleveland and his successors in office, to include President Obama, to administer Hawaiian Kingdom law, not U.S. law, by virtue of a temporary and conditional assignment of Hawaiian executive power by Queen Lili`uokalani made under a threat of war by U.S. forces that illegally landed on Hawaiian territory. This temporary and conditional assignment of Hawaiian executive power remains today in the office of the U.S. President."

Queen Lili`uokalani was to grant amnesty to members and supporters of the self‐proclaimed government who committed the crime of high treason at the overthrow.


This is basic contract law ie. offer, acceptance and consideration. President Cleveland made an offer, and Queen Lili`uokalani accepted the offer of considerations to be exchanged.

‘They’re robbing us’: 12-year-old exposes Canada’s banking flaws, goes viral — RT

Inspiring message from a 12 year old. Obviously had input from her father but just to have the awareness raised about this in children is awesome.

BCL 'says' that any contract in which one of the parties is signing under coercion (I suspect the 'threat' of WAR qualifies?) is an invalid contract. Both, or all parties must enter into the contract 'freely' without coercion.

Can't getmore basic than that! Jim

Sorry man, she's an actress. Digg deep enough and you'll find that RT is a disinfo deal. Actors, acting. I know

Disinfo?

What is she saying that isn't 100% factual?

Do you have a reference where she is an actress or are you speculating this.

RT has questionable stories (agendas) - but again, what is she saying that isn't true?

"First of all, I think we need to know what they are doing," Paul replied.

"For example, the dollar once upon a time was backed by gold, then it was backed by Treasury bills. Do you know what your dollar is backed by now?

Used car loans and bad home loans.

The toxic assets that no one would buy? Guess who bought them? The Federal Reserve bought $2 trillion dollars. You scratch your head and you say, 'Well, that's assets. That's good when you take your savings.' They didn't take savings. They simply printed the money and bought all the bad assets."

KOP on Mar 8, 7:37 AM said:
He really is as stupid as his father.
The Fed's balance sheet is published every week.
It would have taken 10 seconds for someone
not retarded to realize that his line about the Fed
buying $2 trillion in used cars and bad home loans
wasn't even remotely related to reality.

Rand Paul Tells Jon Stewart: American Dollar Backed By 'Used Car And Bad Home Loans' - Business Insider

Al

This extremely unusual, unofficial, and rare is one of only two known 47 star flags, presumably made to honor the admission of New Mexico, January 6, 1912. Arizona was admitted a little over a month later adding the 48th star. Officially, the stars are not added until the following July 4th, but sometimes manufacturers and others have jumped the gun.
Pre-48 Star Flags


Al

Was Queen Lili`uokalani not a native Islander? The 1.75 million acres of Hawaiian land that were seized by the U.S., in cooperation with sugar and pineapple growing businessmen who conspired to depose the queen and imprison her, were crown lands under possession of the queen, not the 43 years recognized Hawaiian Government.

Dick Morris, Author of the new book, "SCREWED", talks about the presidential election.

Video clip- [url="http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/2012/05/13/dick-morris-pres-obama-has-borrowed-so-much-money-world-has-freaked-out?intcmp=obnetwork"]

SCARY-ALARMING-TREATIES
Globalization and loss of sovereignty coming true.

??? Will Obama have the power to sign and get these treaties ratified during the lame duck session???

Gene

Yes, and its all 'well and good' to BLAME Wall Street and D.C, and even 'rightfully so'; no argument.

But, we ALSO have to recognise that WE, collectively, are to blame.

Credit has a 'legitimate' purpose or use; if you want to buy something, like a house that; A) it would take 30 years to save up enough $ to pay for with cash, and B) During that 30 years, you would be paying RENT, and that $ can otherwise go towards the house payment, since you can start living in the house as soon as you have 'purchased' it.

However, because of the actions of DC and wall street, credit became 'easy' to get, and with low interest rates. And so, the vast majority of people, as individuals, companies large and small, municipalities and even countries, became 'addicted' to easy credit. Plenty of blame to go around for debt
as People 'maxed out' their credit cards, and either got their limits increased, or got another one. Companies made payroll by getting short-term loans, INSTEAD of doing what they needed to, to keep their businesses on a sound financial footing; look how many businesses went 'bankrupt' soon after the finanacial crises 'hit'; actually, they had been 'bankrupt' for some time, but were able to 'keep things going' thru short-term loans.

Municipalities, (Governments) similarly spent $ they didn't have, and couldn't have gotten thru taxation, because they were able to borrow it.


All of this had the effect of 'artificially' jacking up the economy; in effect, 'creating $ where none really existed. If I am on a 'pay as I go' basis, I am limited in how much products and services I am able to purchase, based on my income. However, if I have 'easy credit', with low interest rates, i can purchase MORE 'STUFF', i.e. products and services. Multiply 'me' by 10'sof thousands, and you create a demand for MORE products and MORE services, and therefore more JOBS, for people to make these products and provide the services. Credit became like 'Meth', where the addict percieves they are more productive, as they run around doing nothing, but doing it REAL FAST. So, our 'economy', (world-wide) SEEMED to 'expand', and people thought they could 'ride this high', forever, just like the Meth-addict. But, just like the Meth-addict, sooner or later you got to 'come down', and crashing is 'Hell', (just ask any 'addict').

And most people, it seems to me, are STILL in denial, about their own responsibility, and are really just wanting things to get back to the way they were, which is also a typical attitude of an addict, when forced to 'face' their addiction; and the politicians are catering to this, argueing about who can create the most jobs, instead of recognising that 'growth' for the sake of growth, and as a result of 'artificial' stimulants (credit) are NOT going to resolve the problem, and will in the long run only lead to another crash, with even more severe consequences.

"Blaming" DC an Wall Street, is a distraction, and its likeblaming the 'pusher'. Sure, drugs wouldn't be a problem if you couldjust get rid of all the 'pushers', but 30-40 years of a 'War on Drugs' hasn't gotten rid of the 'pushers'. And, if their were no 'addicts', to buy the drugs, there would be no 'pushers'.

To 'come back' from my analogy, if no one was interested in using credit to live beyond their means, what Wall Street and DC do, wouldhave little impact.
Jim

US HARVESTS HOPIUM IN AFGHANISTAN - YouTube

Al

You are expressing the conclusion I have relunctantly come to: I have SEEN the 'enemy', and he is ME!

WE still haven't learned the lesson, and so we will have to 'do it again', ('financial crises'), and I'm not sure the enabling actions can be taken, again.

Interesting times a'comin, so 'batten down the hatches', is what i'm a'thinkin'!Jim

This guy is worth a look if you haven't already found his videos.

The video below is one of hundreds. In all of them, Stefan Molyneux tries (and largely succeeds) in using philosophy and reason to clear the fog of propaganda.

Inprotantly, he goes one step further then most who contribute to this thread.

Enjoy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GV6a...0&feature=plcp

Inprotantly?

In your web browser's address pane, type in "BarrySoetoro.com," (without the quotation marks, or comma, of course) and then hit your Enter key and watch what happens. This is hilarious! I hope you can try this before the word gets out and it is taken down.

@dutchdivco great post, nice analogy

I posted in another topic about the same problem, A New Global Currency
Basically no matter what type of government anyone wants to have, the means have to be controlled in some form or another.

Exactly. We the people run this country and this economy, if it falls it was done by our own doing. Its hard to blame ourselves though, honestly its the nature of animalistic existance it consume and expand.

It honestly is all about the availability of the means. We all know Credit is simple access to more means by the masses. As long as "Easy Credit" is avilable it will never stop being consumed by the masses. Like i said, thats the nature of existance, you can look at every other aspect of life to see the proof. We are animals, its in our nature and our dna to consume and expand we will not stop until there is nothing left to consume and no where else to expand. In that reguard we are no better than a mile wide swarm of locusts.

Legumes with legs. All of LIfe, plant and animal, shares these qualities. The jungle will overun something, unless aggressivley resisted, etc.

And it seeems unique to humans, to look for someone or something to blame, (partof 'reasoning', perhaps?) and to look to blame someone else, rather than ourselves.
All of the big, serious problems we are confronting, which SEEM insoluble, are of our own making. And they all trace their origins to the decision which started 'civilisation'; the decision to stop being 'hunter/gatherers', and settle in one location. Jim