Saturday, November 26, 2011

Newt Gingrich is Wrong, The Bill of Rights is Still the Law of the Land, Not Two Sets of Laws Under the Patriot Act! Any Questions?

              Newt Gingrich who claims to know history as a college professor. This same person talks about the Northwest Ordinance and claims to revere the founding documents is a hypocrite. He glorified God in the Iowa family forum talking about the faith of the founders and how he mimics them quoting the early  founding documents.. I would like to know what Declaration of Independence did he read from? Why I ask this? It is because it is not the same one I read that has the same grievances against the King is no different what we are experiencing today with Washington DC. When there was the GOP debate. How can Newt say there is two sets of laws for Robbery, rape and another for the war on terror? The truth is, Newt is a two faced politician that talks like a conservative and governs as a globalist. What he says and does are two different things.

             The truth is when the Bill of Rights was drafted and ratified by the states. It was clear there was one law of the land and not a separate law to be enforced selectively for one group of people and not another. They say we need the Patriot act to protect America from those evil terrorist. This very act allowed Federal agents and other Law Enforcement agencies to side step the 4th and 5th Amendments to write their own search warrants instead of going before a judge. This has caused the Federal government to abuse its power in the name of stopping a imaginary enemy no one can see. They are looking for ways around the Bill of Rights because these provisions chain down the power of goverment, not enhance it.

              Back in the days under reign of King George III. The British monarch and Parliament passed the Stamp Act putting a tax on all documents and items people owned. Every possession and document a person owned had to have the King's stamp on it. To enforce this Stamp Act. The Parliament passed the Townsend Act that allowed the British Soldiers to write their own search warrants to enter a person's home to see if everything had the King's stamp on it without going before a Magistrate to ask for a search warrant as directed under the Magna Carta. We are experiencing the same abuses today the early colonist dealt with. No matter what rationalization and excuse the Politicians use why we need the patriot act. The notion we have to give up our liberties for safety is nothing more then political rhetoric to sell us an fabricated fear of a phony enemy.

            Newt Gingrich is wrong and he knows it. The Bill of Rights applies to every person, regardless if they are a citizen or non citizen. These rights are unalienable. No matter what, if a person is accused of conspiracy to commit an act of terror or committed an act of Terrorism all the way down to the charge of petty larceny. The goverment has to bring a case before the grand jury to see if there is enough evidence to have a public trial The accused has a right to assistance of counsel and a trial by a jury of their own peers. The signers of the Declaration of Independence agreed " Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;" The war on drugs and the war on terror is no exception. What happened on September 11, 2001 is no reason to usurp the rights of the people. Declaring people enemy combatants by the discretion of the President based on his own judgment without any accountability to the congress or the courts is very frightening. The right of Habeas corpus is being denied based on this designation.  King George III did the same thing depriving people of basic rights. They are doing the same thing today as fallows in this founding document. Nothing has changed, this Declaration against this British monarchy Thomas Jefferson written so well and eloquently is very clear about why we wanted to be free and independent from the King.

-For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:(Police and other agents are immune from any prosecution for abuses against the people, The TSA seems to above the law to grope, steal, and rape)

-For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:(Military tribunals at Gitmo)

-For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offenses:(Federal goverment today fabricating evidence to declare any American enemy combatants to be transported to CIA black site outside these united States)

-For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:(The government has no case most of the time and has to try to keep a jury out of the court room)

             There is no two sets of laws. The government is breaking the law. I do not care if they use administrative law, admiralty law or military tribunals to bypass these rights of the accused to bring their own witnesses and evidence in their defense against the charges presented. The war on Terror or Drugs does not establish two sets of laws. The Constitution puts limitations on goverment and does not empower them to trample on the rights of the people fighting a phony enemy. If this is how the former Speaker of the House thinks saying there is two sets of laws. Then my assumption is this. Newt Gingrich is not fit to be president or even dog catcher. If he took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Then there is no wiggle room to get around the law of the land. I am just glad Ron Paul is in these debates to set the record straight that liberty must be preserved at all cost even in this phony war on terror. Newt is wrong, the Bill of rights is still the law of the land and not the Patriot act. As the fifth them amendment states very clearly on historical precedent. " nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." That means torture is not justified nor is killing American citizens without a trial. Any Questions Newt? I did not think so.



  1. Newt Gingrich, GET LOST!!!

  2. The government has millions of laws on the books that contradict each other so they can get you coming and going. It’s been slowly designed that way to keep the average American under the brutal thumb of the government. “Comply, or go to jail.”

  3. There is no hard evidence destruction of the Bill Of Rights has made Americans safer just like there is no hard evidence the U.S. has been threatened by a real terrorist attack

  4. Heil Newt!!! Heil Newt!!! I want him to be the next Fuhrer!!!!!

  5. These rights are inalienable? I think you meant to type unalienable.
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
    Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are UNALIENABLE. Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition

    "Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

    You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.

    Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.
    Just my 2 cents worth

  6. To The Blogger of Lone Star:

    You have a lot of good things to say, but please take a course in English grammar, syntax, and spelling... You are sorely lacking in composition skills, thus I have often just exited your diatribes...which I genuinely support.

  7. Like with the TSA, Newt refuses to say out loud just who DID 9-11 or arranged the airborne 'terrorist events' and the urban ones with defective explosives or none at all. That makes Newt a molester wannabe who will have the power to put you in chains before they make a video of abusing your junk to send back to the White House for Newt's entertainment. Like they did with abu Garaib and Bush43. FBI memos confirmed this was done.

  8. I the person who complains about my grammar. I have no time to study english and street talk and grammar are two differant languages. If you cannot understand the language of the street. You will not survive. I will not take a english grammar course. I am not looking to achieve the Pulitzer propganda prize award. There are enough liars in the press using perfect english to pass disimformation. Why would I sttop so low to learne english to write like a prestitute?

  9. realman2020 No offence but Anonymous is right. You make a lot of good points here but your message suffers from poor English. Form does matter. You don't have to take a course in English but why don't you at least move your posts to Word before you publish them on your blog

  10. Well I did Jeff use word.If It does not please the world. I cannot be get too bent out of shape, If you want to help me than give me your email. because word and soft ware does not do nay justice either.

  11. Greetings, Texas Blogger!

    Yes, what Newton Gingrich is proposing is TREASON, just as sure as the Sun rises in the East. Of course, this isn't the first time that he has acted within politcs to usurp the Supreme Law of the Land...

    It is a shame that your critics here (apparently), themselves, have failed to take such 'English' composition courses; of which, the lack thereof, is the primary basis if their complaints.

    While it is a truism that composition and grammar skills are the hallmark of a finely educated gentleman (at least within the 'higher political and financial circles'), it is also the truth that the Constitution For The United States was written in such a fashion that every citizen, whether 'edumacated' or not, could easily grasp the ideas and laws that are the groundwork and Supreme Law of this confederation of States.

    Shall we therefore allow this traitor to the Constitution, Newton Gingrich, to continue in his quest to usurp the Supreme Law that we all hold as most important, or are we a nation of divisive, puling little children that care more about the state of shine on an English composition?

    If the latter is the truth, then we are going to get what we deserve. I hope and pray that this is not the case, 'realman2020'.

    I AM

  12. FYI, Tex,

    I arrived here from Micheal Rivero's site, named 'What Really Happened', crosslinked from 'Black-Listed News'. If the trend keeps up, I expect that several other sites will be adding this link in the following hours or days.

    Have you ever read the book 'Animal farm', by George Orwell? It is rather fascinating. The parrallels between Newt's 'two sets of laws, one for the Unwashed and one for the Elite', and the lesson that is told in this tome is quite startling, to say the least.

    Oh, as far as your 'grammar-nazi' critics: I read this book when I was 12 years old, way back in 1974, with a comprehension rate of 96%.

    'All animals are equal, but SOME animals are more equal than others'...I beleive that there was a pig named 'Napoleon' or something, that was quoted as stating this, in that novel that I mentioned earlier. After Gingrich divorced his wife (according to the L.A. Times, 1994, he is quoted as saying that she was too homely to be a president's wife, and besides that, she had cancer), and then failed to share the proceeds of his book sales with her and THEIR children, I became interested in the reasons why he was speaking of 'family values', while deciding to rally Congress to vote in favor of establishing The Department Of Education (usurping Constitutional limits on the Federal Government), way back in the 1970's.

    I would love to see a photoshopped pic of him, and the snout of a pig...

    If you do the research, you will find that I SPEAK FACTUALLY in these matters (and there are many other issues such as this).

    I AM

  13. Newt might be right to a degree.

    We seem to always forget the fact that these loosely-connected, sovereign, independent united States were forced into "bankruptcy" by the banksters of Europe after the civil war. A new form of federal government was created with the passage of Act of 1871, which operates as a business, and is know as THE UNITED STATES; WASHINGTON, DC; THE CAPITOL. It's headquarters is the geographic area of Washington, DC. It has its own constitution, similar to the original. The main difference being that we as people are the lowest office holders of this corporation, and must abide by its statues, acts, forced upon us by the higher office holders, such as Congress or President of the corporation...

    So, in a sense Newt might be right.

  14. Anonymous said... Newt might be right to a degree.

    This is correct. There is an organic constitution and a corporate constitution.

    The owner of this blog doesn't like to know those things.

    And he won't enumerate responses because he thinks idiots can't respond if he doesn't.

    And he's not from Texas and he doesn't know anything about Texas.

    He is, however, quite emotional and adverse to calm thought.

    And he won't answer emails because he is very insecure about his positions, inspite of his emotional fervor.

    'nough said. If you watch, you will se it.

  15. Well the truth is the people have been tricked by the polticans. assuming they had the republican form of goverment in secracy they highjacked the country. This was done without the consent of the people having corproate form of goverment. I am aware what was done, but I do not reconize it because it was done with the consent of the governned which makes it illegidement alltogether because it was not legal to do. Yes I am not from Texas. But I am an Alamo Texan. There were not native Texans. They stteled in Texas or north Mexico whe under the rule of Spain escaping the Cnetral bank because it crushed the economy. I am very aware bu I do not reconize the corporate govermenrt we did not consent to.

  16. Sorry but you are wrong, The bill of Rights is not the law of the land; it hasn't been since 2005.
    International laws supersedes the bill of rights or any other law of the land. UN Agenda 21, SPP Agreement, NATO all supersede American laws on American soil.

  17. MontgomeryScott said...
    Oh, as far as your 'grammar-nazi' critics: I read this book when I was 12 years old, way back in 1974, with a comprehension rate of 96%.

    Did Orwell use an editor for that book? Did he spell check before he submitted it? Did he say, "I'm writing something important, so it doesn't matter how well I write"? Did he say "I have no time to study english and street talk and grammar are two differant languages."

    The question is simple. Why do great authors- even when they have something great to say- take the time to write well? Why do they bother?

  18. To Canuckism101 and All:

    International laws do not supersede our Bill of Rights or any part of our Constitution. That is a misinterpretation of the Supremacy Clause. Ref: Article 6. See also for further clarification of the issue. In short, there is no Authority of the United States to act outside of our Constitution. To be valid, all laws and treaties must be pursuant to the Constitution. It is State Constitutions and State laws that are to be in alignment with our Constitution -- not our Constitution realigned with International laws and treaties. It takes 2/3 approval by our Senate and no infingement of our Rights or our Constitution to make valid treaties. We are not bound and subject to the UN or others by treaties or supposed agreements that subvert and violate our Constitution. In fact, the UN is simply a chartered organization like a corporation -- not the equivalence of treaty law or any higher power than our Constitution.

  19. Roland, you are not a great writer.
    Let's have THAT topic.
    We know you hate that topic, but let's have it anyway.

    You are NOT a great writer.
    You are a FAILED writer.
    Is realman a failed writer?
    No, he writes all the time.

    As a professional writer, and as a professional academic, I have seen 'your issue' countless times and I will keep on seeing it for the rest of my days.

    There are 'professors' who make a career of pretending to understand the work of a great writer. That would be your highest aspiration. You dream of having people recognize you as an authority about someone with talent. You have no dream of having any ability yourself.

    In a room of perfect writers, everyone argues.
    They all have different styles.
    I have heard people argue that all writing should be dialog. I have heard countless theories on it. I have heard countless hypotheses on what MATTERS in writing. Books sold? Attention from the audience?

    Roland, the answer is in you. Why are you a failure? You talk lots about grammar. What has grammar done for you? It helped you be a failure as a writer.

    Writing is about IDEAS. Ideas. So complex for your lower mind. An idea? What is an idea?

    Idea is something YOU NEVER HAVE!
    You lack the genes to have 'ideas'.

    How can you tell? Study your behavior. When you, Roland, post, what do you post?

    you SNIPER others.
    you COMPLAIN at others.
    you CRITIQUE others.
    Others WORK; you read their work; you bitch about THEIR work.

    Do we bitch about YOUR WORK, Roland?
    Well, no......
    No one ever ever ever has complained about the work of Roland. WE CAN'T! You can't make any work for us to complain about.

    You are not a player. You are audience.
    You are so stupid, Roland, I will repeat this more slowly. It is like you watching TV. You don't write, produce, direct, or act in - any TV shows. You WATCH the TV shows made by others, then WHINE ABOUT THE CONTENT. You are a watcher not a maker.

    You are AUDIENCE, Roland. You are nothing dirt.

    No one cares what a failure like you thinks.
    Real writers WRITE THINGS, not whine and complain about what others write.

    Here you are, Roland... giving your advice on how to write. HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!

    Your advice on how to write?

    YOU CAN'T WRITE, you loser! STFU!
    No one wants writing lessons from a failed writer like you.

    Hey, Roland the failure...
    go whine about what someone wrote...
    all you can do.

  20. Lone Star, don’t worry about the syntax/grammar police. The message is what’s important. They’re probably trolls just trying to waste your time anyway. Or maybe they graduated Harvard Law School and only understand legalese in triplicate.