America's Kids: No health care for us? Then, no photo ops for you!
Watching Conservatives try to justify Bush's veto on this bill is sick. They really have no defense so you'll hear their favorite buzz words like "socialism" and "communism," thrown around. I'll have a clip later of Rachell Maddow making the odious Pat Buchanan's head explode over this issue.
via Campaign for America's future:
"Conservatives are on notice! As the House prepares to vote on whether to override Bush's veto of children's health insurance, America's kids are sending a message to conservatives: No health care for us? Then, no photo ops for you! Check out the new video for Campaign for America's Future, then click here
...to send your own message to your Representative. House conservatives are really nervous about this vote. Most voters in both parties want kids to have health insurance. Unlike Bush, House members are up for re-election next year, and sustaining the veto is indefensible. But they don't have to defend it unless we keep the issue alive and the pressure on."




Very revealing. I still believe we need to get the insurance industry pirates out of medicine though.
This is dirt on the GOP's grave, give 'em a super tuber and be done with em!
Most of these idiots couldn't spell socialism let alone explain what it means.
They're like parrots! Wave a little red napkin in front of them and say "commies" and watch them squawk.
odanny @ 2:
GOP doesn't care. Their scribes will write great praises about them in the "new edition" history books no doubt.
Want free healthcare kids? Go live in the Soviet Union.
Fred Thompson @ 5:
Cuba would be better for Fred.
Did Bush say I vetoed it because these folks need some tough love and need to learn how to pick themselves up by their own bootstraps?
What about those who don't have boots?
Bush isn't doing his Republican pals any favours, is he? This is one issue he didn't need to veto, he could have "given" it to the liberals. One issue that really isn't all that important to his agenda (important to lower middle class americans though). He puts his fellow republicans in a tough position doesn't he? Its weird that anyone still supports this president. What has he done for them? Makes you think how crooked they must be. Must be something big to gain to make life hell for sick children and their family. Monsters, all of them.
Its pretty sad. The slippery slope to communism! This program has been in use for years, America is as capitalist as EVER.
Good luck overriding the veto, America! Hes had too many and it would make me happy to see the idiot Bush lose for once.
Barrett D @ 8:
He doesn't have to. Bush Co has robbed every penny from the American Treasury they possibly can and signed American Taxpayer on the signature line of the IOU's to our creditors.
NO healthcare FOR YOU
...ragsanga...SOCIALISM...hmphryhugga...COMMUNISM...sligginslunka...VETO...
I love it!!! great campaign!
xoites defends Constitution @ 11:
DRUDGERY
That ad is a HOMERUN! I love it too!
Is it just me, or is taxation without representation running rampant?
"Please, Sir... may I have some
more?healthcare?" Oliver Twist 2007does this mean that he will finally hear the word NO?
Billions are shelled out for his debacle in Iraq. But nothing to give health care to Americans. Wow.
They prattle against socialised medicine, totally ignoring how many things are already socialised. Police force, fire department, public schools, public libraries, just to name a few. This not wanting to give Americans health/medical coverage has nothing to do with gov't money, or socialism. It's to keep the big health insurance industries raking in fat profits, and buying errr 'donating' to certain politicians who are all for corporate health insurance.
Any time a profit margin compared to health, you know the company is going to opt for profit over the people.
that is the coolest.... that should go national!
L.A. Confidential @ 7:
Yeah, just like he did, right? Bootstrapper Bush. How many enterprises (not counting the entire US government) did Bush run into the ground, only to be bailed out by his father's moneyed friends?
And what's this about Commies? I'm more afraid of red states than I am of reds. Bush and cronies may not realize we already have nationalized health care ... it's called Medicare.
We only have 473 days left to deal with this this waste of skin, this useless trash who is beneath Satan's whores (IMHO). It's not too late to impeach him.
Fred Thompson @ 5:
I don't know if you are up on current events (of the last 15 yrs) but there is no Soviet Union.
Have a nice day.
"Compassionate Conservatism"!
True meaning - "I feel your pain, now fuck off!"
the only people left in the world who still love W
heh heh!
Very well done...bravo!
That's one smart little kid. Right on!!!!
I hate repugnantlicans. They just want kids to die. Hell, they'd like to see all of us die so there is more oil for them. The Constitution says we have we have the RIGHT! to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That means it is up to the government to keep us alive and how should they do that? Everyone, all together now...UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE!
What they are doing is very unconstitutional. The founding fathers would be turning over in their graves if they knew those pukes were keeping healthcare from us. They want everyone to have a gun but they won't pay the medical bill when we get shot. What kind of sense does that make?
Also, to keep healthcare from children is just criminal. They can't help it they were born young and unable to take care of themselves. They are just killing the kids. Before they're born do with them what you will but once they're born we have a responsibility to care for them.
They're cutting their own throat though. You let enough kids die or become vegetables and you ruin the tax base. Let's see them cut taxes then. HA! even they will have to vote for tax increases. I hope I live to see that day.
I'm sick of people doing photo ops with Bush. They star fuck while their neighbors kids can't get preventive medicine
Darn!!! Those Grand old Farties!!! I am sooo mad!! Our 2 boys are ADD....it costs us $53 for each of them per month for their medicines...without help they will be climbing the walls of the trailer!!!
jr @ 27:
Preach it brother. I don't know why anyone would want a photo op with shrubman. The only reason I can think of is that they can say "Hey, I know I'm a loser" and then the show the picture of them and Bushie and say "but I'm not as bad as this guy". BTW, preventative medicine is the way of the future. For the GOPee to ignore that just shows how much they live in the present and not the future.
Well...I think they should do more preventative things too!!!
When the baby is born if they would just put a chip in and they could read what is happening with the kid. If their iron is too low...the doctor could call and tell the mother to get them more veggies. It would help in so many ways to have that. At school each kid would be given the lunch program based on their bodies needs for that day.
and we could make sure that the home schooled kids are treated right. No one is investigating if those kids are starved.
wow talking about two faced hatemongers. liberals are mean.
you guys just don't get it do you? have you ever tried to go see a Doctor in Canada? it takes MONTHS.
we do not have the funding to pay for unneeded social programs that you areallowing to be over run by ILLEGAL imigrants and don't you DARE try to say that the illegals aren't eating our Social Security now. they ARE. you crazy liberals ...what i find the saddest is your not researching what on earth you are talking about . please do some reserch from a real news sorce not Fox or wher ever youer getting your drivil from. at lest Glenn is widely unbaisedand willing to let people talk.. so sad. so closed minded..... step #2 send the criminals back to ther countries of orign. so we don't keep bleeding money.and can maybe actually afford to take care of our own .
you idiots certainly couldn'ttake care of me when i was being used as slave labor. youdidn't help me when I was out of work
you didn't help me geta job.
I helped me!! stop whining and help yourselves stop whinning.stop punishing people who worked ther way up. and provide us with jobs.
Paint @ 31:
I'll bet you're one of them mermans. I bet you've already made up your mind you're gonna vote for romney. You people need to keep your religious bigotry out of my politics.
Mark Foley has always stood by kids ;)
TAX BLACKWATER, NOT SMOKERS!
I'm a lifelong Democrat but I'm about ready to give up on my party's ability to do math.
They want to fund SCHIP by taxing cigarettes in the hope that more smokers will quit. Which means SCHIP gets less funding. This is not a terribly smart proposal. And it deserved to be vetoed, even if by the wrong person for the wrong reasons.
Democrats need to go back, quit funding the Iraq war and use that money to fund SCHIP.
Leave the smokers alone. We've suffered more than enough.
The Bacon @ 32:
So true...Those mermans need a big cup o' shut the hell up hot ands steamy!!!
where in any of that did i reffer to religion. ?
since you asked i'm PAGAN , suprise!! i belive inself accountability.
and no I'm still very torn . on who i am voting for .
although Ron Pual is looking better.... i'm not thrilled with his voteing record or occasionaly lack of voteing record .
but then again i like to actually do my homework on whom I'm voting for.
Paint @ 37:
I love Ron Paul!!! [deleted--please respect the siteowner's policy to not discuss 9/11 theories on this site] At least if he becomes President we would get a criminal investigation into the real Al Quidea....the Bushie Administration.
Doe's anyone remember bush standing there with all those "Snowflake Babies" when he vetoed the stemcell research bill? Would someone with some talent and tech skills make a juxtopositon video with that concept. And please please please don't forget to the audio of him claiming that the Democrats are the ones playing politics....with the children.
charmingtail @ 38:
Yeaj, they got thier war...err I mean crusade!
Paula @ 39:
OMG!! That is great....what's you e-mail address and I will zip that right to you!!!
Paint @ 37:
What grade are you in?
it is of my belief that .
if you do not have a SS # or at least are a naturalized US citizen
# 1 do not believe you should be allowed on US soil for longer then 6 months or with a special work VISA .
That your company must pay for to have you here after PROVING with out any reasonable dought at all. by penalty of enormous fines you are not doing a job another American citizen can do.
#2 you know i don't see while a lot of these "Katrina victims" from 2 years ago that are still living off the governments dime ?
aren't picking veggies or pecans or doing the grunt work , for min-wage while working there way up..
min wage in Cali is 7.50 right now ....just work.. if the illegals go away ... why not make those that are on welfare work?
if they are able-bodied why not work? and if you speak english you be able to geta job . When i was HURTING I was denied work becuse i'm not Bi-lingual. I should NEVER be denied work on American Soil becuse I only speak English .
#3 i do not believe FED. government should be providing health care, there again i agree with you. that should be a motivator to get a better job not a freebie.
although actually it's cheaper paying out of pocket in a lot of STATES, i have done the income adjusted sliding scale in GA when i was a student and I needed a cat scan . . I do believe STATES should provided health care programs. or at least mitigated health care to lower income people . under $20,000.00 a year and by me a child is defined as under 18 years old. this 25 year old is a child actully HURTS indepentat students as i was unable to get aid or be taken seriously by my school till i was 24. that made me angery .I have been on my own since i was 18
government job is national security only
states job is citizens security
also interesting paper discuss if you can discuss so far ther has been a lot of name calling but no real talk that makes me sad
United States vs.
United States vs.
United States Of America
Few Americans realize that There are three definitions for the "United States". Most have been misled to believe that the term "United States" has a single meaning and is a generic term referring to the country as a whole. Not always so. The legal standing of each individual American to any one of the three varies depending on his lack of status or his status in law. If you are a citizen of the District of Columbia (the Democracy) you have privileges granted by congress--Or, if you are a Citizen of the Union (the Republic) you are endowed with Rights --some of which are unalienable. All licenses are privileges whereas Rights are gifts from God. Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition at page 1703 defines the term as follows, "UNITED STATES". This term has several meanings. (1) It may merely be the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. (2) It may designate territory over which sovereignty of the United States extends; or, (3) it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution. " Hooven & Allison Co. vs Evatt, 65 S.Ct. 870, 880, 324 U.S. 652, 89 L. Ed. 1252."
The first (1) "United States" is as a sovereign among the nations of the World under International Law (a nation amongst nations). It consists of (1) the Union States and (2) the federal zone (District of Columbia, U.S. territories and possessions, forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings), and is represented collectively in the international arena by the U.S. Consuls abroad as one and the same entity. The flag that properly represents it in the world arena is "Old Glory".
The second (2) "United States in Hooven, supra, was created by the Constitution in Art. 1 ,Clause 8, Cls. 17 and 18. This "second United States" received further authority when under Art. 4, Clause 3, C1. 2, "to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the territory or other Property belonging to this United States" but it gave no authority to Congress to extend its municipal authority into the Union States. The latter gave Congress power to extend its jurisdiction (law making powers) beyond the limits of the District of Columbia over which Congress was to exercise "exclusive Legislation" to include the former territories such as the Northwest territory, Alaska, Hawaii, and the Philippine Islands, and currently, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, and other territories, possessions, areas and enclaves. It's flag is the Stars and Stripes with the yellow fringe representing a plenary Martial Law jurisdiction. The geographical area known as the "United States" (DC) has its own citizens. (see United States vs. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 588) who are generally referred to as United States citizens. The yellow-fringed flag signifying this jurisdiction is not for decorative purposes. It signifies the jurisdiction of the District, also known as the Corporate U.S. Federal that has been extended into the Union states by the 14th Amendment. This is the flag of the Democracy. It should be obvious to everyone who observes the flag next to his Senator or Representative from Washington D.C., that he represents the Districts interest in the area of his constituency and not the other way around. When the function of the Circuit Courts of the United States of America was changed to appellate status by another layer of courts, these courts were labeled United States District Courts-- the courts of the District. Where are the courts of the United States America sitting today ??
The third (3rd) "United States" ( of America ) described in Hooven, supra, is the 50 Union States united by and under the Constitution. This "3rd united States" (of America) is known as the Republic. It's flag is "Old Glory" In the Constitutional Courts, the civil authority of the Constitution is signified by the Stars and Stripes hung vertically behind the bench just as it hangs behind the Speaker's Chair in the house of Representatives. Why, one might logically ask, is that not found in our courtrooms today?
The Republic has Citizens of it's own called American Nationals. Those are the Sovereign Citizens who qualify as such by being Members of the Posterity refereed to in the Preamble and can only be the Natural Born or Naturalized White Inhabitants of each state whose forefathers delegated by solemn agreement certain powers to the Congress of the "United States" (D.C.), which powers are limited to those delegated in Art. 1, Clause 8, Cls. 1-16 and Art. 4, Clause 3, Cl. 2, though today unlawfully expanded far beyond Constitutional limits by the usurpation on the one hand and by the deception of offering benefits by contract which American Nationals unwittingly and unknowingly enter on the other hand.
When legislating for the third "(3rd) united States" (of America) all powers not enumerated in Art. 1, Clause 8, Cls. 1-16, are reserved for those sovereign Citizens and states of the Republic by the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution of these united States of America (In Union) respectively. The Founding Citizens of the Republic gave very limited powers to the Congress of the United States to legislate for the geographical area known above as the "3 Union States", described in the Hooven case, supra. These legislative powers are limited to being exclusive within the area of it's jurisdiction as is that power possessed by any one of the legislatures of the 50 states of the Union when legislating for its responsive geographical area. However, when legislating for the 50 Union states collectively as a nation, Congress is bound by the chains of the Constitution and must remain inside the jurisdictional boundaries of Art. 1, Clause 8, Cls. 1-16, "and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State" [18 U.S.C. Clause 7 (1), (5), & (7), see particularly Clause 7 (3)].
Constitutional Law
Territories, power of the United States over, as plenary[ full, entire, complete, absolute ] In exercising its constitutional power to make all needful regulations respecting the territory belonging to the (2nd) United States, Congress is not subject to the same Constitutional limitations as when it is legislating for the 3rd states of the Union.
Hooven & Allison Co. vs Evatt, supra; Downes vs. Bidwell 182 U.S. 244
Constitutional Guaranties as extended to territories.
"In general the guarantees of the Constitution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of excessive legislative power, when exerted for or over the insular possessions of the United States, extend to them only as Congress, in the exercise of it's legislative power over territories belonging to the United States, has made those guarantees applicable." Hooven & Allison Co. vs. Evatt, supra. ie., The Court states that the rights of those within Congress's sphere at exclusive jurisdiction are mere "privileges" extended them at the whim of Congress. Those who live in the District of Columbia, it's enclaves, territories, or possessions, and those who live in the ceded areas of the several states (called "federal areas or enclaves") are known as #2 United States citizens. They are true federal citizens. From the standpoint of Constitutional law Congress has 100% control over the lives of All #2 United States citizens whenever they reside in the several states, or elsewhere, and their rights are subject to Congress's exclusive legislative authority. Such rights are called "civil rights". This type of government is a "Legislative Democracy", the object of which, since passage of the 14th Amendment, has been to rob Natural Born Citizens of their birthright and bring all Americans into the Democracy under the legislative authority of Congress as a single group under authoritarian rule --contrary to the intent of the Organic Constitution. In contrast, white people living in the Union States (the Republic) are not under the Congress's legislative authority and are known as American Nationals. They are citizens of the (3rd) united States of America. The reason that the federal government prefers that everyone submit to its authority "voluntary" under the 14th Amendment through participation in Social Security is that the IRS can lawfully tax only federal #2 United States citizens, it's employees and those others who willingly contract with it. and not #3 American Nationals who chose not to. It's authority does not lawfully extend to the latter unless they "voluntarily" place themselves under the "private commercial law" of CORPORATE U.S. FEDERAL by contracting with it by such a simple and subtle means as merely using Federal Reserve Notes and associated commercial paper instruments. Included in this latter group are those Whites who elected to be 14th Amendment citizens by "voluntarily" entering into unilateral contracts with the federal government by contracting for Social Security Old Age Insurance, obtaining licenses, privileges, etc, and by "voluntarily" making W-4 and 1040 contracts annually. This is what is meant by their claim that the federal income tax is "voluntary". In this way, those who "volunteer" themselves into federal contracts place themselves under the authority of Congress's powers to regulate commerce under Art. 1, Clause 8, Cl.3, subjecting themselves to the federal income tax. Thus the federal government ultimately obtains legal title to all of our property and total control over our lives leaving us with only the equitable interest so long as we perform the terms of our contracts. A serious breach of the contract means the loss of our equity; i.e., the government will take our property. The 1st clause of the 14th Amendment created a subject matter enclave jurisdiction to "artificially" create citizens not circumscribed by the Organic Law (Negroes, corporations, licensees, etc.) and placed them directly under municipal authority of Congress so that wherever they might "reside" in any one of the several states, territories, or possessions, they are within the scope of Congress's legislative authority as their existence is a federal state created privilege.
Since the nations bankruptcy in 1933-- and the subsequent overthrow of the Constitution in 1933--though our government will not "openly and officially" admit it-- its position is that all Natural Born Citizens are also "subjects" with jurisdiction acquired by our "voluntary" contractual participation in Worldwide Social Insurance. Accordingly, all races are considered joined together as 14th Amendment (D.C.) citizens, "subjects" since being "enrolled" into Commerce by their "birth certificate", and by subsequently confirming their consent, when "applying for" such Unilateral Contracts as the Drivers and Marriage Licenses, Social Security Application, Selective Service and Voters' Registration, Bank Accounts, Credit Applications, W-4, and 1040 Income Tax Contracts, etc.For those who would chose to follow Satan, God provided flaws in the Constitution -- Art. 1 Clause 8, Cls 3, 17,& 18, and Art. 1, Clause 10, Cl. 1- - for the International Bankers to discover , to humble Christian Americans who would turn their backs on their God to worship the strange gods of greed, power, prestige, sex, the sports world, etc.- - their idols of materialism - - all violations of the First Commandment. When a Natural Born Citizen with a SS# refuses to sign a 1040 contract the federal courts will rule that he has " a know legal duty" which compels him to contract with government without ever requiring the government to produce the laws that make him liable for the tax and require the affirmative act of filing. Such quasi- coerced and compelled "commercial agreements"- - though entered out of fear - - need only be entered voluntarily and intentionally to have validity. The fact that he did not enter the agreement knowingly is immaterial. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
It has taken concerned American Nationals 62 years to figure out why our Constitutional protections have been legislated away since 1913 by a Congress initially ordained with no such powers. Under the Common Law, violations require an injured party (a Corpus Delicti), and contracts must be entered Knowingly, Willingly, and with full knowledge of informed consent (intentionally). Having done so unknowingly or unwillingly could not have resulted in any forfeiture of unalienable Rights that would bring about a loss of property (labor) or liberty (held in captivity) as has been the case resulting from alleged Internal Revenue Code violations by American Nationals. Such an insidious plot perpetrated against American Nationals could only have been conceived and hatched in the mind of Satan. How did this system of Commercial Law develop? It developed as a result of the use of the introduction and use of Federal Reserve Notes (Commercial Paper). In pursuance of our use of this "Commercial Paper" the courts in our country are proceeding under the old Negotiable Instruments Low which has been codified into the Uniform Commercial Code and subsequently adopted by all the states. A Federal Reserve Note dollar is a fictional instrument a "colorable" dollar, and not the lawful dollar described in Clause 9 of the Coinage Act of 1792, (371-1/4 grains of .999 silver.) Common Law and Equity use gold and silver; Admiralty use gold only. All systems of law described in the Constitution are based on substance. No system of law that uses paper can be genuine - - -therefore it is a "colorable" system of law. So the Banksters and the Bar Association invented this new "colorable" jurisdiction to support this colorable law called "statutory law" which operates not according to "Public Law" but according to "Public Policy". For many years Patriots thought that because this statutory jurisdiction followed Admiralty rules it was an Admiralty jurisdiction. Not so! The only reason the Banksters did not enforce the Bankruptcy of 1933 by 1938 and foreclose on this and other bankrupt nations is that they did not have control of the guns. So you see why it is today that gun control is our governments paramount objective through deception of anti-terrorism legislation?
Our servants of the Public Trust have long ignored the meaning of the 9th and 10th Amendments and the Concept of "unalienable Rights" so eruditely stated by Jefferson in the Declaration Of Independence for the benefit of the People of this nation and their Posterity. Our Natural and Unalienable Rights run much deeper than those so called "civil rights" regulated by Congress through the 14th Amendment, [Proof of this among others is the duplicate due process clause provided therein for its citizen "subjects" ]If we expect to claim our Rights it is our individual responsibility to see that the Bill of Rights is enforced and that those violating our Rights are tried for Treason. ] Truly, we are engaged in a spiritual battle. The situation that presently exists in the 50 Union States is the very reason the 2nd Amendment was written - - so that the contract called the Constitution could be enforced by the People (i.e. the state 3 Citizens).
Why all the confusion over the simple term "United States" ?
Obviously, to extend the taxing powers beyond their constitutionally authorized limits. Everybody knows that:" The District of Columbia is not a state within meaning of the Constitution" [ U.S. vs. Virginia (1805) ] like the 50 states of the Union, and yet it is referred to in all the (2) United States Codes as a "State", meaning the corporate and statutory venue of the Union. The District of Columbia is a corporation which is also known as the "1 & 2 United States." It must have it's own definition for "state" since it 1 & 2 and the territorial States were not formed as Union States (3) by and under the Constitution. It is the primary entity owning Guam, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, etc., which are federal States. Nevertheless, the federal courts are unconstitutionally enforcing the jurisdiction of CORPORATE U.S. FEDERAL (2) entity upon the entire geographical area of the Union states (3) as if they were under Congress' exclusive legislative authority (see 18 U.S.C. Clause 3231, with it's Cross References referring the reader to 18 U.S.C. Clause 7, @ (3). The law is clear on this point, but the courts won't enforce it. Here are the facts concerning the term "United States" when used in the federal tax code (Title 26) which has it's own peculiar definitions (called terms of art) written by the craftiest of legal minds, and paid by our tax dollars to defraud us, the American People, of our labor property.
1."United States" does not mean the fifty states of the Union except in
two extremely limited areas which deal with excise taxes on articles and goods.
2. "United States" means "federal areas" within the fifty states of the Union which are ceded to the "United States" and under the municipal authority of the Congress seated in Washington, D.C., but it does not include the entire geographical areas of the several states of the Union.
3. "United States" means the possessions of the District of Columbia which are its States - - -Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands. It does not mean the 50 Union States.
4. The numbers 2 and 3 above are called "States" but are not to be confused with the states of the Union, such as Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky. The "Internal Revenue Code" is purposely written to mislead and is purposefully misconstrued by the courts in the interest of promoting "Public Policy".
5. "United States" are: Congress assembled at home (the seat of government), the District of Columbia and its territories (termed States in the IRS Code) and its possessions (ceded areas, military posts, navy yards, etc.) called federal enclaves.
6. "United States Citizen" does not mean a Natural Born Citizen who is an American National. State Inhabitants who live in the Common Law venue and jurisdiction of one of the 50 Union States are not "subject to" the income tax laws unless they either work for the federal government [see 26 U.S.C. Clause 6331(?)] and thus are compelled to pay a Kickback for the contractual privilege received. Or they are those who produce alcohol, or tobacco under Title 27, the Stamp Tax Act. The District of Columbia is referred to as a "State" in the Income tax laws and Social Security laws, as well as in all other codes of the "United States" to purposely leave the law open to interpretation so the courts can "mold" it in the interest of "Public Policy" under the Colorable Law of the Uniform Commercial Code. Federal Law Distinguishes How our government complies with the law while promulgating the fraud...
Do they know the difference? You bet they do! and the following law proves it. From the Code of Civil Procedure.28 United States Code: Section 1746 Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury. "Wherever, under law of the United States, or any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated in substantially the following form.
(1) If executed without the United States: "I declare (or certify. verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date).
(Signature)"
(2) If executed within the United States , its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: "I declare (or certify, verily, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date) (Signature) [emphasis mine] The writers of the Code of Civil Procedure in (1) above are referring to the Common Law venue and jurisdiction (that of the Republic), and in (2) above, the statutory venue and jurisdiction of the District Of Columbia (that of the Democracy) -- not just whether one is inside or outside of the country -- but whether one is legally situated inside or outside the Republic, through your ignorance in this instance will never be challenged. Please also note that when government employees and agents sign documents they are only required to swear that the information is true, correct and NOT "Complete " as is required of those United States citizens/"subjects" who submit 1040 contracts because of their so-called "voluntary" relationships with the District. That should incline one to inquire just who considers whom the master and whom the servant in this relationship. A word to the wise ....
Copyrighted at Common Law (rev. February 27, 1998)
Bob Jungles
Paint @ 43:
WOW!!! You should just go to a Dittohead place of better still just hopp right on the Glenn Beck train....I think you sound just like that Glenn Beck. Why are you even here?
charmingtail @ 44:
Ecxactly just go to Beck.com or whatever the h*ll it is, the constittution was meant to be changed anyway
gregoriohatesu @ 45:
QFE
I'm so proud
thank you thank you
your words are so kind .
im a poor, african-american 15 year old. i have no way to pay for my own health care, and my famly can't pay eithr!! y isnt the GWB trying to help me? isn't this country care about what happens to it's people? especially the minorities? minorities got screwed over in Katrina by GWB, and now we're getting screwed over by him again with the halth care...GWB is suposed to care about me! buut does he? NO!!!!!!1!!!!!! to expect me or my family to pay for something as basic as health is stupid and unconstututional!! we are supposed to car!! if we want helth care, we have to pay for it ourselves? y does that make any sense? he doesn't care about my education or my family, so y would he care about my health? all he cares about is oil profits...he wages a nonlawful war and then uses my black brothers and sisters as human shield!!! screw him.
Watched this exchange between Maddow and Buchanan. Why the .60 cents more on a pack of cigarettes? Why not bully the alcohol industry? Tax beer and wine and hard liquor disproportionately too. Let's say, make a can/bottle of beer $10 each ($60 a six pack) and the oft touted merlot $50 a bottle. We dems get hooked into unfairly over-taxing the tobacco industry and give the alcohol industry a romp in the park. How about guns? Tax the shit out of them too. They're all under one roof ATF. They're all killers. Don't isolate and intimidate one industry over another.
It is about getting and giving MORE PROFIT to BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD
Paint @ 31:
the rest is unintelligible. or lies. or venom..
and it certainly should have been spell-checked
but there are no high expectations for trolls,
heh, heh.
Paint @ 43:
those are not beliefs, they are prejudices. you must be home schooled or related to dan quail.
[...] Americas Kids: No health care for us? Then, no photo ops for you!As the House prepares to vote on whether to override Bushs veto of childrens health insurance, Americas kids are sending a message to conservatives: No Health care for us? Then, no photo ops for you! Check out the new video for . No Tags [...]
BaScOmBe @ 52:
I love quail! What's wrong with quail? I love to get my gun and shoot quail and eat 'em!! A nice glass of wine and I'm a happy camper. Where'd I put my gun.............?
The exchange between Rachel Maddow and Pat Buchanan is posted here:
http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-US&brand=msnbc&vid=547e7e93-0851-479b-8fcf-...
It is a lot of fun watching Buchanan's head explode after he runs out of -isms.
Its not the government of GWB responsibility's to take care of you! Giving people lots of social programs makes them dependent on the government instead of themselves. Furthermore, giving people health care takes away the incentive for you to live healthy, exercise, eat right and not have kids you can't afford. Of course dems want you to depend on the government so you can keep depending on them, i.e. elect them!
I signed some petition over this and sent a little nastygram to congress... Basically I let them know everyone is watching on this one and that they had better get their shit together on this veto and overide Bush if they want to continue to have careers as politicians...I'm sure I wasn't the only one to tell them that...
We'll see... I say, if they don't back this for children, then we sweep them ALL out next year, and make damned sure they know exactly why their political careers turned to dust!!!! JD
Paint @ 43:
Shut up and quit quoting damn books. You wanna publish books? Get your own website.
[...] John Amato wrote a fantastic post today on “Americaâ
[...] John Amato wrote a fantastic post today on “Americaâ
Comments are closed on this entry