Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Lawful Rebellion / Non Compliance / Sovereignty

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 16-04-2010, 09:45 PM   #21
herald holmes
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 289
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark1963 View Post
Sad - we are all sovereign.

We are all born equal.
Speak for yourself, I have never accepted the title of Sovereign.

If all are Sovereign, what is the title but self inflated ego? I have no subjects and observe a greater force within.

I did not create this body. I cannot escape environmental influences, neither my own genetic make-up nor death. To claim that I am a Sovereign is a pretty bold and pretentious claim for someone so tied to forces beyond my control.
herald holmes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-04-2010, 09:16 PM   #22
thecreator
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 14
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by herald holmes View Post
Speak for yourself, I have never accepted the title of Sovereign.

If all are Sovereign, what is the title but self inflated ego? I have no subjects and observe a greater force within.

I did not create this body. I cannot escape environmental influences, neither my own genetic make-up nor death. To claim that I am a Sovereign is a pretty bold and pretentious claim for someone so tied to forces beyond my control.
Actually you do have a subject, its called a PERSON(unless you have abandoned yours), its a BC, SSN, DL they are all your subjects. We abolished slavery then created fictions to boss around but most weren't taught to distinguish themselves from the fiction and have instead become slave to the fiction, which works quite well for those who would claim authority over the fiction, for if I don't make that claim "they" will.
thecreator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-04-2010, 09:30 PM   #23
herald holmes
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 289
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thecreator View Post
Actually you do have a subject, its called a PERSON(unless you have abandoned yours), its a BC, SSN, DL they are all your subjects. We abolished slavery then created fictions to boss around but most weren't taught to distinguish themselves from the fiction and have instead become slave to the fiction, which works quite well for those who would claim authority over the fiction, for if I don't make that claim "they" will.
Not really, do you know what a person is? It is not a subject, more a duty.
herald holmes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-04-2010, 10:20 PM   #24
ecca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 596
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

It's time to start turning their propaganda buzz-word terminology around on them, I think.

You call them legit investigators? I call them an extremist cell working towards the destruction of the freedoms we once held so dear.
You call them diplomats? I call them terrorist masterminds.
You call them authorities? I call them terrorist groups and organizations, running cells who are operating under color of authority.

this report is disgusting

Last edited by ecca; 19-04-2010 at 10:22 PM.
ecca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-04-2010, 10:26 PM   #25
prajna
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 233
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ecca View Post
It's time to start turning their propaganda buzz-word terminology around on them, I think.

You call them legit investigators? I call them an extremist cell working towards the destruction of the freedoms we once held so dear.
You call them diplomats? I call them terrorist masterminds.
You call them authorities? I call them terrorist groups and organizations, running cells who are operating under color of authority.

this report is disgusting
Well said, Ecca. My sentiments, too.
__________________
FREEDOM
[BEST BEFORE: 11 Sept 2001]
http://declarepeace.org.uk/
prajna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-04-2010, 06:23 AM   #26
aronia
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,857
Likes: 203 (134 Posts)
Exclamation Charles J. Bonaparte, a Knight of Malta

Quote:
Originally Posted by ecca View Post
It's time to start turning their propaganda buzz-word terminology around on them, I think.

You call them legit investigators? I call them an extremist cell working towards the destruction of the freedoms we once held so dear.
You call them diplomats? I call them terrorist masterminds.
You call them authorities? I call them terrorist groups and organizations, running cells who are operating under color of authority.

this report is disgusting
The FBI was founded by Charles J. Bonaparte, a Knight of Malta who served on the board of trustees for the Catholic University of America. FBI directors Louis Freeh and Thomas Pickard are devoutly Roman Catholic and Louis Freeh is an alleged member of Opus Dei.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showt...=16102&page=12

Quote:
Charles Joseph Bonaparte



37th United States Secretary of the Navy
In office
July 1, 1905 – December 16, 1906

47th United States Attorney General
In office
December 17, 1906 – March 4, 1909

Non-profit organization positions

Chairman of the National Civil Service Reform League

President of the National Municipal League
1903 – 1910

Born June 9, 1851(1851-06-09)
Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.
Died June 28, 1921 (aged 70)
Baltimore County, Maryland, U.S.
Political party Republican
Spouse(s) Ellen Channing Day Bonaparte
Alma mater Harvard University
Profession Politician, Lawyer



Charles Joseph Bonaparte (June 9, 1851 – June 28, 1921) was a member of the United States Cabinet, serving appointments by President Theodore Roosevelt as Secretary of the Navy, then as Attorney General of the United States. He created the Bureau of Investigation, which would later become known as the FBI.
[edit] Biography

Born in Baltimore, Maryland, he was the son of Prince Jérôme Napoleon Bonaparte (1805-1870) and Susan May Williams (1812-1881), from whom the American line of the Bonaparte family descended, and a grandson of Jérôme Bonaparte, who was briefly King of Westphalia and the youngest brother of the French emperor Napoleon I.

After graduating from Harvard University and Harvard Law School, where he would later be appointed a university overseer, he practiced law in Baltimore and became prominent in municipal and national reform movements.

On September 1, 1875, Bonaparte married the former Ellen Channing Day (1852-1924), daughter of attorney Thomas Mills Day and Ellen Cornelia (Jones) Pomeroy. They had no children.

In 1899 Bonaparte was the key note speeker for the 1st graduating class of the College of Notre Dame of Maryland. In his speech he addressed "The Significance of the Bachelor's Degree"

Today, and here for the first time in America, a Catholic college for the education of young ladies bestowsthe bachelor's degree...

The Style of Scholorship...which benfits the recipient of the bachelor's degree has two distinctive and essential marks. It implies in the first place a broad, generous sympathy with every form of honest, rational and disinterested study or research.

A Scholar who is also, and first of all, a gentleman may be...specially intrested is some particular field of knowledge, but he is indifferent to none. He knows how to value every successful effort to master truth; how to look beyond the little things of science...to the great things - God's handiwork as seen in nature, God's mind as shadowed in the workings of the minds of men.

Young ladies, of this degree has such meaning for your brothers, what meaning has it for you?...



He was a member of the Board of Indian Commissioners from 1902 to 1904, chairman of the National Civil Service Reform League in 1904 and appointed a trustee of The Catholic University of America.

In 1905, U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt appointed Bonaparte to his cabinet as United States Secretary of the Navy. From 1906 until the end of President Roosevelt's administration he served as United States Attorney General. He was active in suits brought against the trusts and was largely responsible for breaking up the tobacco monopoly. In 1908, Joseph founded the Bureau of Investigation (BOI).

He was one of the founders, and for a time the president, of the National Municipal League.

Bonaparte died in Bella Vista (originally built as "Mount Vista Estates", in Baltimore County, Maryland), and is interred at Baltimore's Loudon Park Cemetery. Cause of death was "Saint Vitus Dance" -- today known as chorea. A nearby street in Baltimore County bears the name of Bonaparte Ave.

Mr. Bonaparte drove the 15 miles every day to Baltimore to do business in his coach pulled by four stout[citation needed] draft horses, and was timely enough that the local residents would be able to tell time by his passing by. The Mount Vista Mansion site can be seen by driving north on Maryland Route 147 and is not the original home on Mount Vista Estates since the original "Bella Vista" property burned in the 1930s and was replaced by a poured concrete structure built upon the original location of Mr. Bonaparte's Bella Vista home. The original Bella Vista was not electrified since Bonaparte refused to have electricity or telegraph lines installed due to a dislike of technology, verified by his use of horse-drawn coach until his death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Joseph_Bonaparte
Quote:
The Birth of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
Office of Public/Congressional Affairs
July 2003

By: John F. Fox, PHD


It’s all up with the “black cabinet” of Washington,” read the Washington Evening Star. Congressional hearings were then underway into the practice by which the U. S. Secret Service loaned investigators to other federal agencies, primarily the Justice Department. As a result of these hearings, Rep. Walter Smith (R-IA) declared that “Nothing is more opposed to our


President Roosevelt

race than a belief that a general system of espionage is being conducted by the general government,” and Rep. John Fitzgerald (D-NY) warned against the dangers of a federal secret police. As a result of these hearings Congress forbade the Secret Service from loaning investigators to other departments. Having lost access to those investigators, Attorney General Bonaparte created a small force of detectives for DOJ; this was the predecessor of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Because Congress had condemned “secret services,” “black cabinets,” spies and detectives at this time, many Bureau critics have charged that the FBI was created in opposition to Congress’s will and so was born illegitimately. This was not so.

Prior to 1908, the Justice Department had no organized force of investigators to gather evidence. It relied on detectives hired from the Secret Service and, for a while private detectives. Under President Theodore Roosevelt, this began to change. The vigorous application of older laws and the increase in new ones that occurred during his administration began to tax the Justice Department’s ability to detect crime. In 1906, sixty Secret Service operatives were needed, the next year, sixty-five. These investigators came from a reserve force of about twenty that the Secret Service kept to help other departments as well as a list maintained by Chief John Wilkie of some 300 other investigators who had applied for Secret Service positions, were already vetted by the Treasury Department, but for whom no position was available.[3]

This system had worked for many years, but in 1906, Congress began to question it. That January, Appropriations Committee chairman James Tawney (R-MN) asked Assistant Attorney General Glover where the Department of Justice got its “secret service,” i.e. detectives. “Generally from the Treasury Department,” Glover replied.[4] Why, Tawney pressed, didn’t the Department rely on its own investigators? Glover answered, there weren’t enough in the Department for the work that needed to be done, but “some persons … have considered the question … as to whether the Department ought to have its own secret service force.” “That is a different proposition altogether,” Tawney snapped. Glover quickly added that the Department had rejected the idea as too costly.

Tawney complained that the Secret Service loan program gave “what Congress would never authorize, …a secret-service bureau in every Department,” thereby creating “a system of espionage in this country which is entirely inconsistent with the theory of our government.” Glover insisted that the Department needed detectives to investigate “violations of the law” and Tawney backtracked. The Justice Department, he averred, “ought to be clothed with all the machinery necessary to conduct prosecutions,” adding, if other Departments need “to use secret-service men they should obtain authority from Congress …[so that] the advisability of maintaining the service throughout our Government would be determined by Congress.” Tawney’s concern could not have been of pressing importance. He did not seriously revisit the issue for two years, though he kept tabs on the use of Secret Service operatives during this time.


Charles Bonaparte

Charles Bonaparte, who was appointed Attorney General in March 1907, quickly became convinced that the practice of using Secret Service investigators was a problem. His lack of complete control over the investigators, he later argued, meant that he “had no direct information as to what they did, and …but an imperfect control over the expenses which they might incur.” In his Annual Report, Bonaparte called Congress’s attention “to the anomaly that the Department of Justice has no …permanent detective force under its immediate control.”[6] He asked that “provision be made for a force of this character; its number and the form of its organization to be determined by the scope of the duties which the Congress may see fit to intrust [sic] to it.” In January 1908 he followed up his request in person. Bonaparte reminded the House Appropriation subcommittee of his earlier request and complained that the Justice Department had “to rely on the secret service of the Treasury Department,” which had just “gone up on us in price.”

Chairman Tawney questioned Bonaparte on how these investigators were paid. “The reason I asked,” he lectured, “is that there is a specific appropriation for [the Secret Service] and…a proviso that the appropriation should be extended for no other service.” The Executive, Tawney thought, should not be loosely interpret the strictures of the law. Roosevelt’s position, though not stated at these hearings, was that what was not forbidden by the law was allowed, hence as president, he had wide discretion in marshaling the executive power. Tawney opposed this and sought to uphold Congress’s authority. It was this concern that fueled his anger at the Secret Service and Roosevelt. It is ironic that Bonaparte’s request re-ignited Tawney’s concern; Bonaparte was clearly trying to do as the Chairman had asked, i.e. go to Congress for authority to create a detective force.

During February and March following Bonaparte’s second request, Tawney’s committee held a series of hearings about the Secret Service practice. The most significant testimony came on March 24, 1908 from William H. Moran, assistant chief of Secret Service. Under questioning, Moran discussed a controversial investigation conducted by Secret Service investigators who surveiled a Navy midshipman who had run away with a married woman. The more important issue raised in Moran’s testimony, though, concerned the legitimacy of the investigator loan program and Tawney continued his sharp criticism of it. Incensed about the matter Tawney’s Subcommittee drafted an amendment to kill the loan practice. Toward the end of April, the FY 1909 Sundry Civil Appropriation bill came before the House for debate and Tawney’s amendment, among others, was added to it. The opposition was sparse.

Roosevelt now entered the debate. Of especial concern to him were provisions concerning the Interstate Commerce Commission, a limit on wages that could be paid in Panama, and the end of the Secret Service loan practice. Each of these measures struck at presidential management style and understanding of the powers of his office. Each sought to limit Roosevelt’s ability to act without congressional input. They were widely welcomed in the House as it, which although under control of Roosevelt’s party, chaffed at its apparent loss of power to a popular and aggressive president.

Lobbying against the bill, Roosevelt wrote to Speaker Joseph Cannon, asking that the problematic sections be killed. Regarding the Secret Service provision he argued that it would “materially interfere with the administration of justice and will benefit only one class of people – and that is the criminal class.” In a handwritten post-script, he added, “there is no more foolish outcry than this against “spies”; only criminals need fear our detectives.”

His low-key lobbying had little effect. On May 1, 1908, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider amendments to bill. Debate over the Secret Service limitation amendment covered several issues, including: 1) the illegality of the Secret Service practice; 2); concern over investigative functions in the government; and 3) the question of whether congressmen should be investigated by the executive branch.

Representative Parsons (NY) asked Chairman Tawney. “Does the gentleman think it desirable to have a general detective service for the Government.” “No; I do not,” replied Tawney, nor did he want each agency to have its own detective force. Justice could get detectives in the same way it had done so prior to its reliance on Secret Service personnel, he argued. “There is nothing in this provision to prevent” the Justice Department from “…simply selecting a man from [the Treasury Department’s long waiting list of acceptable applicants] and employing” him as needed to investigate crimes.

Representative J. S. Sherley (KY) pointed out that every time Congress had taken legislative action against the Secret Service it was to reign in its power. Representative Bennet, the primary opponent of the limitation, challenged this claim and he and Sherley got into an argument about the propriety of the Navy Department’s use of investigators in the case of the adulterous midshipman. Debate shifted to whether congressmen were fitting targets for investigation by “secret-service men.” Bennet avoided the question by providing a philosophical disquisition on the role of Congress in the government and the need for congressmen to police themselves.

“All this committee is asking,” Rep. Smith proclaimed, “is that the expressed and declared purpose of Congress existing [in the Secret Service appropriation] for a quarter of a century shall be obeyed.” Smith’s point drew much applause, suggesting the House was on the side of restricting the executive. Representative Fitzgerald seconded Smith’s point, adding: “There has been an effort once or twice to create a general police system under the Federal Government,” but it has failed. When a federal Attorney needs an investigator, Fitzgerald suggested, he could find one locally like any other attorney would do. Bennet quickly challenged him, reminding Fitzgerald that most attorneys would hire a private detective for such work, but the law barred federal agencies from doing this. Fitzgerald countered weakly that federal agencies could employ investigators found on the Secret Service’s eligible applicant list instead.

As the debate began to wind down, Representative Driscoll suggested that there should be one secret service in the government, housed where there was the most need for investigators, and capable of loaning detectives to other departments as needed. Tawney quickly attacked his suggestion, stating that this was what the amendment wanted to prevent. Bennet then challenged Tawney over the usefulness of the loan practice, but he was interrupted by cries of “Vote!” The debate was ended and the limitation on the Secret Service quickly approved. The Sundry Civil Appropriation Bill passed the House soon after.

Not surprisingly, Justice Department officials were deeply concerned about this turn of events. United States Attorney Henry Stimson wrote Bonaparte on May 6th, “Is there no way in which the Bill can be stopped in the Senate?” He enclosed a New York Times editorial. The Times blasted the “combination of ‘land sharks’” that had swayed the House, making the Representatives “become the tools of thieves.” Bonaparte promptly forwarded the gist of the letter and clipping to Senator Allison of the Senate Appropriation Committee.

Perhaps the Senate took heed of the Time’s criticism. The bill as passed in the Senate did not have the Secret Service provision. A conference committee was convened to reconcile the difference and, at the House’s insistence, the Secret Service amendment was re-added to the final measure. The Conference Report on the bill was passed overwhelmingly with little fanfare on May 17, 1908. The President quickly signed it; his complaints were insufficiently strong to risk significant appropriations for key programs. A veto would likely have been overridden anyway given the margins by which the measure passed. The Congress adjourned for the summer. The provision regarding the use of Secret Service operatives would take effect at the start of the new fiscal year, July 1, 1908.


Stanley W. Finch

Within days of this deadline, Attorney General Bonaparte began a small reorganization of Justice Department to address the impending loss of access to the Secret Service operatives. With little fanfare, he began to group together the sundry investigators of the department and nine Secret Service agents permanently hired as Justice special agents. On July 26, 1908, Bonaparte ordered DOJ attorneys to refer most investigative matters to the Chief Examiner, Stanley W. Finch, who would determine if there were Special Agents under his direction available to investigate the case.

When Bonaparte announced the creation of a special agent force to Congress that fall in his Annual Report, he must have considered the action a fait accompli. In fact, if President Roosevelt had not inserted himself into the matter, it would have elicited little if any opposition. Instead, in his December 1908 annual message to Congress, the lame-duck Roosevelt ignited a fierce political battle. He declared: “The chief argument in favor of [the Secret Service] amendment was that Congressmen themselves did not wish to be investigated.” The House immediately demanded that Roosevelt present any evidence he had to back up his claim. A special committee was created to consider the evidence Roosevelt might supply. Five days later, the Senate adopted a similar resolution. Washington was in an uproar.

On January 4, 1909 he publicly took up Congress’s challenge and, in Congress’s eyes, retreated. Roosevelt argued that the House must be mistaken. He had not accused Congress as a whole, nor identified any specific members as motivated by fear of being investigated. Instead, the President continued, his criticism flowed from an analysis of the arguments on the House Floor during debate over the bill. His claims, he replied, were drawn specifically from the remarks of Tawney, Sherley, Smith, Fitzgerald and Cannon.

The House was not appeased. A resolution to rebuke the President was. Debate over it mirrored that concerning the Secret Service limitation. Representatives Fitzpatrick, Sherley, and Tawney all rose to denounce the President and to deny his claim that they had opposed the Secret Service loan practice out of fear of being spied upon. Rep. Bennet defended Roosevelt, arguing that there was evidence that fear of investigation had been a motive in Congress’s action.

An important silence ran through this debate. No one criticized Bonaparte’s force of special agents. In fact, the comments made were favorable and many of these came from the proponents of the Secret Service limitation. In answering Bennet’s charge that the Secret Service limitation hindered the discovery and prosecution of crimes, Fitzgerald replied that since July 1908, U.S. Attorney’s had been able to call upon Justice Department detectives. He added approvingly that this force operated under the proper appropriation. The limitation, Fitzgerald concluded, had not prevented the Attorney General from acquiring the “special force, which he believed preferable to the use of the secret-service men of the Treasury.”

Other critics of the President took similar positions. Tawney noted that Congress had not restricted the ability of any department “to employ detectives or secret service men;” it only forbade details or transfers of investigators from the Secret Service division. All other appropriations for detective services were left untouched, in fact, Tawney added, they were all increased including that for the Secret Service Division itself. Representative Smith added that there was “no limit whatever upon the power of any department in the selection of its numerous special agents and inspectors.” Congress’s action was simply to prevent “the old system of law defiance and law evasion,” he concluded.

The House passed its rebuke of President Roosevelt with 212 yeas to 36 nays; 5 members abstained from voting and 135 members did not vote. The portions of the President’s message and reply deemed offensive were tabled and the House immediately passed an additional resolution authorizing an ad hoc committee chaired by Representative Olmstead into all aspects of the Secret Service. Almost immediately, the scope of this investigation was drastically narrowed.

The Senate itself chose to ignore the President’s earlier slight. Roosevelt claimed victory. The administration even thought it likely that Bonaparte’s force would gain not only firm legislative sanction in the fiscal year 1909 appropriations, but that it could be given authority to recreate the old Secret Service loan practice under Justice Department control.

By that point, few cared to continue the political battle. Even so, some of the old opposition from Tawney’s committee refused to die, but Congress was moving in a different direction. On March 3, an ad hoc committee on the Secret Service suggested that the regular authorization of both agent forces should be made part of the regular appropriations bills of Treasury and Justice. Roosevelt left office the next day, as did Charles Bonaparte. Two days later, the new Attorney General, George Wickersham, issued a formal order creating the Bureau of Investigation. Within two years, Congress had tripled the size of this force and greatly broadened its investigative authority.

Several things clearly emerge in this story. The original limitation on the Secret Service was passed largely due to the efforts of James Tawney and the other members of his subcommittee, Sherley, Smith, and Fitzpatrick. Congress as whole passed it as a means to restrain Roosevelt’s expansion of executive power even though the President’s party controlled both houses. The debates barely touched on intelligence issues and delved into law enforcement ones to illustrate concerns with abuses of “secret services.” Dissatisfaction with how Roosevelt exercised the powers of his office and how he treated Congress clearly underlined the debate. Quotes like those made at the start of this paper were rhetorical bludgeons wielded in political battle with Roosevelt. The real reason for this battle was the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches, not hyperbolic fears of a police state. Critics have missed this key feature of the debate, opting instead for a sensationalistic denunciation of Bonaparte’s infant special agent force to criticize the mature Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Last edited by aronia; 20-04-2010 at 06:26 AM.
aronia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-04-2010, 03:59 PM   #27
hadabusa
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: zurich
Posts: 22,683
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default fbi's word on fotl

theyve drawn the line


http://www.fbi.gov/page2/april10/sov...ns_041310.html

rob?
fbi, bullshitters?
hadabusa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-04-2010, 04:05 PM   #28
open_mind
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=112356
open_mind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-04-2010, 04:10 PM   #29
hadabusa
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: zurich
Posts: 22,683
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by open_mind View Post
dooh, sorry for repost.

tought its somewhat important.
hadabusa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-04-2010, 05:38 PM   #30
mark1963
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,645
Likes: 58 (24 Posts)
Default

The FBI have no credibility with honest and thinking people.

They are liars and spreaders of mis-information and dis-information.

Underpants bomber being a good example.
__________________
“Let us rise up and be thankful, for if we didn’t learn a lot today, at least we learned a little, and if we didn’t learn a little, at least we didn’t get sick, and if we got sick, at least we didn’t die; so, let us all be thankful.” - Buddha

www.thrivingaudios.com
mark1963 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-04-2010, 05:47 PM   #31
girlgye
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: In a land that needs to wake up
Posts: 5,509
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Underpants bomber. hehehehehehehehehehehe ROFL.

I mean these bastards are paid in excess of 40k each starting salary to come up with shit like that. Can you imagine?

The thing is even the biggest el thicko is not falling for this one.
girlgye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-04-2010, 07:58 PM   #32
merlincove
Premier Subscribers
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 28,909
Likes: 425 (247 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hadabusa View Post
dooh, sorry for repost.

tought its somewhat important.
merged the two threads
merlincove is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2010, 12:37 PM   #33
afreeman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: SC, Saskatchewan, Canada
Posts: 156
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default No No.. Understand Thy Enemy and How He Thinks

Quote:
Originally Posted by karl j View Post
Darn beat me to it... funny how they still push the citizen in the heading even though we as Freemen or Sovereigns never, ever use that word.
They also use the criminals who use Freeman or Sovereign in their activities and lump us all in their net.... I believe every Freeman/Sovereign i know acts responsibly and peacefully. I believe the FBI needs to change their written word or maybe they should be taken to court for LIBEL. Wonder how that would pan out... ????
Hmm... Seems to me that they add the word "citizen" to both imply that the laws still apply, and to prevent slander, as they are not referring to "us", but rather another group of sov. citizens. (lol)

Also, one must assume that which the average person assumes from the word "citizen". Eg: Taxpayer, obligated by law, and under the authority of government.

In psychological warfare, sometimes it's not what you perceive, but rather what everyone else perceives. Free thinkers can't apply our thinking styles in regards to "common terminology/knowledge", otherwise we bias the information with our knowledge, thus preventing full and complete understanding. The same is reversed when we read legalese, trying to apply "common terminology/knowledge" to something written with completely different intentions.

-Peace
afreeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2011, 01:52 PM   #34
politicallycorrect
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Zion Hill, Kingdom of Mercia
Posts: 59
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karl j View Post
Now Sovereigns are on 'their' radar as they say the increase in interested men and women to the sovereign principles must now become exponential, if this does not resonate with enough people and very soon 'they' will do anything in their power and more to stop it..... the tipping point of change in the UK requires 4 -5 million people and personally speaking i would avoid commercial redemption (how to get arrested for fraud 101) and stick to peaceful sovereignty.
+1
__________________
Ubi est mea anaticula cumminosa?

****WE need ten more brave souls in the Kingdom of Mercia****
politicallycorrect is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

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 On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:03 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.