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 <[email protected]>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.
