PDA

View Full Version : The U.S. is not a sovereign nation.



silverheartbone
17th November 2010, 08:45
Else how could a private corporation, the Internal Revenue Service, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Federal Reserve corporation, dictate to a free people that they must report all business transactions over a set amount to them?

Else face more labor theft (fines) or more loss of freedom (prison)?

Does anyone have a freaking clue as to how we continue to be so stupid as to allow this crap to happen?

Then the federal government abuses us with the power granted them.

When will we sheeple say enough? Probably never.
I'm thinking as soon as we get hungry then we'll start attacking each other.

maplesilverbug
17th November 2010, 08:58
When will we sheeple say enough? Probably never.
I'm thinking as soon as we get hungry then we'll start attacking each other.

Why not attack each other now, like those pre-emptive strikes your gov't is fond of?

silverheartbone
17th November 2010, 09:04
Why not attack each other now, like those pre-emptive strikes your gov't is fond of?

Foreigner,
like it has been pointed out to you before by me and others on this forum,
you give Canadians a bad name.

Don't forget mapleboy,
sleep with your cell phone under your pillow and wear it on your waistline all day.

maplesilverbug
17th November 2010, 09:13
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrZHPOeOxQQ

valerb
17th November 2010, 09:34
Why not attack each other now, like those pre-emptive strikes your govt is fond of?

Hey, don't knock pr-emptive strikes, they are very effective. It's sending in ground troops that makes a mess out things. I say, just kick the crap out of them and telll them to straighten out or 'we'll" be back. If we had wiped out the Rebublican guard in the first Gulf war, there wouldn't be a second one. You wipe out a countries military and they are ripe for the pickings. After that happens a couple times, others get the message loud and clear. No need to spend trillions on never ending ground wars that are laden with corruption. Just a quick strike for a few billion and they are history.

silverheartbone
7th March 2011, 08:51
Clarence Thomas' dangerous conceit (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-turley-clarence-thomas-20110306,0,3221633.story)

excerpt...

In January, Common Cause released documents showing that Thomas had attended events funded by conservative billionaires David and Charles Koch. Thomas was even featured in Koch promotional material — along with Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and others — for events that sought financial and political support for conservative political causes.

Worse yet, Common Cause discovered that Thomas had failed to disclose a source of income for 13 years on required federal forms. Thomas stated that his wife, Virginia, had no income, when in truth she had hundreds of thousands of dollars of income from conservative organizations, including roughly $700,000 from the Heritage Foundation between 2003 and 2007. Thomas reported "none" in answering specific questions about "spousal non-investment income" on annual forms — answers expressly made "subject to civil and criminal sanctions."

In the interests of full disclosure, I was consulted by Common Cause before the release of the Thomas documents. I found the violations regarding Virginia Thomas' income particularly alarming.

Virginia Thomas was receiving money from groups that had expressed direct interest in the outcome of cases that came before her husband, including Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, in which the court in 2010 struck down limitations on corporate contributions to elections.

A justice is expressly required by federal law to recuse himself from any case "in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." This law specifically requires recusal when he knows that "his spouse … has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding."

The financial disclosure forms are meant to assist the public in determining conflicts of interest. Though Thomas clearly could argue that his wife's ties to these organizations were not grounds for recusal, he denied the court and the public the ability to fully evaluate those conflicts at the time. Instead, Thomas misled the public for years on the considerable wealth he and his wife were accumulating from ideological groups.

After Common Cause detailed the violations, Thomas simply wrote a brief letter to the court saying that the information was "inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions."

I've heard from a reliable source that his wife Virginia, is Barbara Bush's niece.