Re: Curt, October 19 2008, 9:40 PM:

Curt,
”I hope you find them interesting enough to pursue. I never knew that I had an interest in either the Law, or Economics, until advantage was taken from me.

What I have found is that the common knowledge in all topics from Physics and Astronomy to History, Law, and just about any subject is corrupt. There is a lot of BS on the Web, but there is also a lot of well documented information too. Be a skeptic in all matters.”

Curt, When I asked the question; “Why is you say that the amendments were not ratified?” I pretty much anticipated your response. I did read the articles you provided and the one in particular “Ohio” not becoming a State till 1953 has been an issue of debate for some time. The best answer I have found is at; http://www.straightdope.com/columns/search? query= ohio+ratified, when I say best, I mean on point.

The Ohio issue is, in my mind, well settled. As to the other amendments I, for the most part, agree that the States are no longer sovereign unto themselves sharing a common good and a common defense ie The Constitution. Attacking the amendments though, is like trying to stop a runaway train by shooting at the caboose.

The original colonies suffered corruption of blood to become sovereign and free from the tyranny of English rule. Less than 100 years later however, more corruption of blood was suffered to surrender the sovereignty the States had earned, and it worked; the North, by defeating the South rendered the States to the tyranny of the Federal Government. The South surrendered the battle and the North surrendered their autonomy.

For a better understanding of what I am saying read, Douglas Harper @
http://www.etymonline.com/cw/apologia.htm
Home page, http://www.etymonline.com/columns/bio.htm

Now, the cabal that you are referring to is not Wall Street, they prefer a free market and yes, they do circumvent the law to maximize their profits. But, if Wall Street had any intention of “taking over” the time would have been during a time of chaos such as the Great Depression. Who was it that brought order out of the chaos of the Depression era? The Government, and who was the cabal? Science. Not the hard working scientists, rather the Phdeists* who hold that their insight into the realities of the universe should hold sway over the lessor included amongst them (middle and lower class) they referred to themselves as “the Brights”. They began their siege of power in the early 20th century, we now know them as anti-non-relativists and anti-intelligent design. It is their intent that we should have “science based legislation” not for the betterment of mankind but the control of the “great unwashed”.

Now I will get to the answer about the age a person is protected by the Constitution. My question was, “how old were you when you came under the protection of the US Constitution?” The answer is found in the Preamble, which reads
”We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,...”
“We the People” being capitalized, signifies the People as being individuals and “United States” being capitalized signifies the States as being individual. That being the case, then “Justice”, “Tranquility”, “Welfare”, “Blessings of Liberty” and “Posterity” must apply to the individual. The Rights established by the Constitution affixed to individual which then attached to their Posterity as was the intent of People at the time the Constitution was ratified. Our Rights as individuals were protected by the Constitution at the time our heritage, or ancestors, came under the protection of the Constitution. If your heritage dates back to those times then your Rights were protected by the Constitution in 1776, which, for most of us, pre-dates our birth.

As you well know there has been a concerted effort by mainstream Phdeists over the last 100yrs to suppress any opposition to Einstein’s Relativity (QM is trivial, when Relativity falls QM will default without additional effort) and overt actions to suppress all public references to Intellegent Design and so far it has worked quite well. One of the most memorable advances for the Phdeist cabal is Roe v. Wade. Under the guise of the “right of free choice” the Phdeists have curtailed the reproducing of the "lessor included", they tried it during the 20s by sterilizing the mentally disadvantaged and in the 40s by spreading VD among the Black population.

My point;
The Government does not have the Right to infringe on privileged information between a lawyer and the client.
The Government does not have the Right to infringe on privileged information between a minister and a patron.
The Government does not have the Right to infringe privileged information between the people themselves.
And most assuredly, the Government does not have the Right to infringe on privileged information between a doctor and their patient.

The quote from you link; http://www.constitution.org/cs_abuse.htm, says it quite well, “Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”
— Frederick Douglass, civil rights activist, Aug. 4, 1857

*Phdeists: those who have the illusion that because of their superior intelligence they should have the power to tell us how to live and what to think. They are the threat to our freedom. (Not that anyone around here tries to dictate what we should think)

bob s

Well stated. right on. I don't have time right now to make some minor points, but shall return.

bob s : "As you well know there has been a concerted effort by mainstream Phdeists over the last 100yrs to suppress any opposition to Einstein’s Relativity (QM is trivial, when Relativity falls QM will default without additional effort) and overt actions to suppress all public references to Intellegent Design and so far it has worked quite well. One of the most memorable advances for the Phdeist cabal is Roe v. Wade. Under the guise of the “right of free choice” the Phdeists have curtailed the reproducing of the "lessor included", they tried it during the 20s by sterilizing the mentally disadvantaged and in the 40s by spreading VD among the Black population."

You are a certifiable nut, bob s. You should seek medical help. Do it soon, because you might be beyond help.

You said: "the time would have been during a time of chaos such as the Great Depression."

I say they are creating the identical scenario over toilet paper money. The last time at least, real gold was stolen. This time it is only entries in a digital memory chip that are wiped clean. "order out of chaos."

Well, thank you Brian Jones, but you should know that I have already been diagnosed as "some what of a idiot" which gives me the advantage over Phdeists and certified "nut cases".

Do you see what I mean Curt, already an Anti-(something or other) is already attacking me. And to think, I was gonna mention Bill Clinton, phewww!

bob s

ps: come back again Brain, we need fresh ideas.

Curt, here is a story from “THE STRAIGHT DOPE” @ http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2817/

I think he writes for a Chicago news paper and he answers some very interesting questions. Today his page had a question about (when-does-human-life-begin). Notice how the question goes from when does life begin to where Cecil changes it to “at what point is a baby entitled to human rights", but Cecil’s response is only to when life begins, which is not what the Constitution addresses. I have no issue with Cecil, I read his blog every day but he did what the Roe v. Wade Court did which is, mis-construe the question. The Court should have been considering when our posterity was to be protected by the Constitution not when life began. When life began was not the issue but when the Right to life was protected is the issue. A Right to life is not a guarantee of life only that the Federal Government has no right to infringe upon the process of attaining life.


”Dear Cecil:
At a forum last August at his megachurch in California, preacher Rick Warren asked presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama when human life begins. McCain replied, “At conception,” a response that went over well with the pro-life audience. Obama said, “Answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade,” which many thought was evasive or flip and which I think sounded lame, even though my own views are closer to Obama’s than McCain’s. No doubt Obama punted because he thought he’d get into even more trouble if he answered frankly, but you, Cecil, are under no such constraints. So tell us: When does human life begin?
— Frank Caplice , Chicago

Cecil replies:
Little problem, Frank. That wasn’t what Rick Warren asked. The thrust of his question — he phrased it slightly differently for each candidate — was, “At what point is a baby entitled to human rights?” But a lot of people think once they’ve answered your question, they’ve answered Warren’s. So here’s my take on the subject, which shows why I’ll never be running for public office:
1. Human life begins at conception.
2. Big deal.”

bob s

Brian Jones is probably a PHDeist, an elitist, and already knows everything. He probably has a seat on the NY stock exchange, already knows the future, and his grandfather had a red shield nailed to the condo his family shared with his father's in laws. He would be the first to help you with the medical help he thinks you need.

He doesn't realize inbreeding produces more defectives than savants. His demeanor projects Idiot Savant. He is probably still looking for his real father.

Curt, it is good that Brian did not read the one where I said Black Holes can't exist because gravity can not collapse into itself, if he asks, I'm not here, OK.

bob s

That's easy, just hide in one of Max™'s tight wads.

Life does not begin at conception. The sperm is a living entity. The egg is a living entity. Two living things join to become one. Life did not begin. The existance of an individual begins at conception, but life does not.

So I ask: Do you think the just concieved zygote merits all the protection of an adult human? If so, why?

Bryan Kelly

I believe that every individual man or woman is entitled to a whack at existence here on Earth. Is it my job to keep them all alive? No, I am not even my brother's keeper.

I have no right to kill my brother, and no right to kill anyone else. I do have the right to defend my family and property with lethal force, if necessary.

Contradictory? You betcha! Don't mess with me.

Re: Bryan, when human life begins October 27 2008, 10:28 PM

Bryan,
”Life does not begin at conception. The sperm is a living entity. The egg is a living entity. Two living things join to become one. Life did not begin. The existance of an individual begins at conception, but life does not.”

Well Bryan, I have to think that your response is just a slight over sight on your part. Because the issue of my original post on this link was not about when life begins. Rather, the issue is when the Constitution protected the Right to life and I do believe that I made that point quite clear. You can, if you wish, go back and reread my post of October 19 2008, 9:40 PM. Having said that, I do agree with what you say for the most part. When you say that “Life did not begin” I take it by the preceding sentence that you mean that life had already begun, am I right?

Bryan,
”So I ask: Do you think the just concieved zygote merits all the protection of an adult human? If so, why?”

Yes, I do! I am firmly convinced that at the time the Constitution was ratified, 1776, all future fertilized zygotes had the Right to attain birth without any interference of the Federal Government.

To carry your issue a bit further. Although a person can not sue or be sued until they reach the age of reason (18) it is the responsibility of the parent(s) to insure that their children(s) (born, un-born and their posterity) Rights, enumerated and not-enumerated by the Constitution are, and remain, protected.

I hope I have satisfied your question Bryan.

bob s

I count myself as a part of the crew in Bob S's craft. The "Constitution" was supposedly created for the benefit of the people, all of us, and not for the benefit of the government and it's minions, sycophants, and servants. The people are not the subjects of government, they are its object. The people are not the government.

Originally, the powers of government were divided, to prevent the tyranny of the few, and the tyranny of the majority. Through the perpetration of ignorance, we are now at the mercy of both.

Hey, more than you asked, maybe more than you wanted to know.

His status at birth is in question, and he has the evidence to clear up the matter. He is withholding the evidence. It is up to the applicant to prove he qualifies. This is not a case for the "fifth amendment." In this matter, silence is acquiescence that he does not qualify. He cannot lawfully be a candidate until he proves himself qualified.

Do you know what bothers me most about this Obama citizenship issue? Hillary Clinton! If anyone had standing to request a certified birth certificate it should be her...where is her voice?

bob s

Do you need more evidence that the whole thing is orchestrated?

Obama's family tells all: http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=248