Hey Dan,
Three bucks, Gold Fringed Flags in Court rooms; terms like "[f]ederation of [S]tates, and the distinciton between the "U.S." and the "U.S.A." will get you, the "Patriot/Militiamen/Tax Protest Crew" a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Moreover, when you start studying some of the concepts that you are obviously studying, (and I salute you for doing so!) you are gonna find a bunch of holes. Many of them are bullet holes from the U.S.D.O.J.
Be careful!
Keith
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Daniel Seigler <danielseigler@hotmail.com> wrote:
--
Sir,
At your townhall meeting on Sunday 17July, i asked you a few questions and your answers, though honest (i hope) were not sufficient in content. So i ask them again, giving you the opportunity to research your answers.
Let's start with something easy. Is the federation of states referred to as the United States of America still working under the contract ratified in 1787? A simple question, requiring a simple answer. Yes or no. No other comments are needed at the moment.
We can all pretty much agree that the federation governing body is spending way too much money. We can also pretty much agree that one should be compensated for work performed. With the need for the federation governing body to cut it's spending, will you be taking a voluntary pay/perk cut?
Assuming we ARE still working under the contract mentioned earlier, "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;"{ARticle I, section 7, paragraph 1} so how does the Senate Constitutionally justify deficit spending? Granted, spending is not revenue, but the separation was placed to insure that no one branch would make law that cost the citizen more than his Representative agreed to. Therefore, by deficit spending, the Senate has determined that the House will raise revenue whether it is a good idea or not.
Does your Office of Senator for Oregon view the USC (United States Code) as the code of law for the United States or for the United States of America? If it is for the United States, which the Congress has exclusive Legislative power over {Article I, Section 8, paragraph 17}, then isn't compelling the states to abide by such law against said contract?
Speaking of the USC, why does it include WashingtonDC, Peurto Rico, Northern Marianas, or any territory or possession as a state, in direct conflict with the Constitution for these United States of America? And what does your office intend to do to correct this unlawful event?
And finally, for the moment, if Congress did NOT declare war against Lybia, and the initial NATO attack was NOT in DIRECT response to an attack on one of these United States of America, and the attack of Pearl Harbor was an act of war on the part of the Nipponese, WHY is Mr. Obama not being impeached and tried for treason?
sign me
daniel karl seigler, born in Fort Benning, Cussetta County, Georgia, son of
Clarance Roland O'Neil Seigler, born in Ozark, Dale County, Alabama, son of
Thomas Malcolm Seigler, born somewhere in Alabama
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment