Cult Watch
See other Cult Watch Articles
Title: Goldi: All TARP Money Went To Holland Because They Built Ships
Source:
El Pee
URL Source: http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/ ... rt.cgi?ArtNum=293302&Disp=3#C3
Published: Jul 26, 2010
Author: Goldi-Lox
Post Date: 2010-07-26 14:59:07 by war
Keywords: None
Views: 36946
Comments: 59
Keep tracing that money. Eventually you'll find that most of it will end up in Holland. Netherlands/Holland/Dutch --- so many names. History shows that these folks were the first shipbuilders for industry, then the first bankers of "industry", and eventually owned New York. NY was founded by the Dutch...New Amsterdam. But they realized they were too VISIBLE, and went underground...where they are today. THESE are the people behind all the GRAND schemes to take our money. International bankers? Naaah. DUTCH Bankers!! They are the ones behind all the schemes to snatch our wealth. Do some research on them. [Are THEY the Bilderberg owners/directors??] You wanna find the black hole for money? Look there. Goldi-Lox posted on 2010-07-26 12:35:30 ET Reply Trace
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 37.
#3. To: war (#0)
Goldi on Mormons: www.libertypost.org/cgi-b...i? ArtNum=293313&Disp=1#C1 [Snip] I don't trust Mitt. My experiences with Mormons is that they all look at the rest of us down their noses, and every one of them was arrogant and rude. They think that THEIR way is the ONLY way...and not just in religion. It's how they are taught. Goldi-Lox posted on 2010-07-26 14:32:34 ET
Goldi-Lox posted on 2010-07-26 14:32:34 ET Damn Fred, you're spookie, I just put this in as a new tagline....&;-) Pot! Meet Kettle! ("My experiences with Mormons is that they all look at the rest of us down their noses, and every one of them was arrogant and rude. They think that THEIR way is the ONLY way...and not just in religion. It's how they are taught. " ~ Goldi-Lox)
Goldi speaks jive/ebonics:
She's really hitting them out of the park today.
Goldi plays investigator:
ROTFLMAO...my sides are splittin...she's the towns nosy gossip mongor... I'll bet she see's rapists and sex fiends under her bed too...aha What a pitiful, lonely life she must lead!
"You ever notice that the people who talk most about abortion, are the women you'd never f**k anyway?"
LOL...too funny! I think I know where you stand on abortion (killing babies), you're against, right?
I posted the Carlin quote, to demonstrate the bizarre thinking that Goldi demonstrates. As to abortion, I'm against Roe v. Wade on the principle of Federalism. Beyond that, I'm not inclined to support abortion in any way. The pragmatic side of me says that you can't *stop* a woman from having an abortion, and the emotional side says such actions fundamentally devalue and waste life... Keep in mind, I have two little girls (the older just turned 3, yesterday), so I'm not just some guy giving an intellectual opinion... Personal viewpoints aside, I don't get rabidly into either side of this particular debate. I think there are far more important issues, that represent a hazard to all people... economic issues, the elitists' eugenics agenda, et al. These are the things I pay attention to, far more than the question of "choice," to use the sound-bite expression of the MSM. Regards,
Do you mean..."because it was settled on the principle of Federalism..."? That said, our rights aren't flexible from state to state.
The SCOTUS had no jurisdiction in the matter. That they did so, was to take on an authority that they did not (and do not) have.
It most certainly was a "...case or controversy arising under [the] Constitution.." the latter to which all states are bound.
Where in the constitution does it give explicit (or even tacit) authority to preside over such matters?
Article III.
Where in the constitution does it give explicit (or even tacit) authority to preside over such matters? Article III. Article III talks about the courts. As to authority of the courts, section II states: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. So once again I ask, where in the constitution does it give explicit (or even tacit) authority to preside over such matters?
You just quoted it. Any time the issue of "power" encroaching a "right" is litigated, it is subject matter for the SCOTUS.
Wrong! SCOTUS is limited to the ENUMERATED powers of the Federal government. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others . Amendment X The powers by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states,
Where is the power delegated to infringe on a right that a citizen of the United States retains under the conditions set in 9A?
Neither the State nor Federal gov has jurisdiction over rights retained by the People. Jury box, ballot box, soap box, cartridge box. We're on number three, headed for 4.
Thus, if, in the US, a body tries to exert power that impugns a right, what is the proper recourse?
That's what the second amendment is for.
Ahyup!
There are no replies to Comment # 37. End Trace Mode for Comment # 37.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#6. To: Fred Mertz (#3)
I don't trust Mitt. My experiences with Mormons is that they all look at the rest of us down their noses, and every one of them was arrogant and rude. They think that THEIR way is the ONLY way...and not just in religion. It's how they are taught.
#8. To: Murron (#6)
#11. To: Fred Mertz (#8)
#13. To: Skip Intro (#11)
#15. To: Fred Mertz (#13)
(Edited)
Goldi-Lox: "Curious. Why would a wife take off for 4 days...the first of which is her husband's birthday? And all the way to SPAIN??? Trouble in paradise? OR is she heading for the hills for some reason? Is something going down we should know about? Something STINKS about this story...I just don't know WHAT."
#17. To: Murron (#15)
I'll bet she see's rapists and sex fiends under her bed too...aha
-- George Carlin --
#18. To: Capitalist Eric (#17)
"You ever notice that the people who talk most about abortion, are the women you'd never f**k anyway?" -- George Carlin --
#19. To: Murron (#18)
#21. To: Capitalist Eric (#19)
As to abortion, I'm against Roe v. Wade on the principle of Federalism.
#22. To: war (#21)
#23. To: Capitalist Eric (#22)
The SCOTUS had no jurisdiction in the matter.
#24. To: war (#23)
It most certainly was a "...case or controversy arising under [the] Constitution.." the latter to which all states are bound.
#25. To: Capitalist Eric (#24)
Where in the constitution does it give explicit (or even tacit) authority to preside over such matters?
#27. To: war (#25)
To: Capitalist Eric
#29. To: Capitalist Eric (#27)
(Edited)
#30. To: war (#29)
Any time the issue of "power" encroaching a "right" is litigated, it is subject matter for the SCOTUS.
Amendment IX
#31. To: hondo68 (#30)
(Edited)
#33. To: war (#31)
Where is the power delegated to infringe on a right that a citizen of the United States retains under the conditions set in 9A?
#34. To: hondo68 (#33)
Neither the State nor Federal gov has jurisdiction over rights retained by the People.
#36. To: war (#34)
Thus, if, in the US, a body tries to exert power that impugns a right, what is the proper recourse?
#37. To: lucysmom (#36)
That's what the second amendment is for.
Replies to Comment # 37.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]