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: 35321
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
#1. To: war (#0)
The damn Dutch have cornered the pretzel market too. Sneaky bastards.
She's wrong. It's Lawrence Welk. And that damned champagne music . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
"Lets [sic] rent a room." ~ Jethro Tull to Rotara
I fond it hilarious that a handful of people who settled the equivalent of four blocks of lower Manhattan - and they had more pigs than people - gave it up because they were too visible.
Oh Jesus fucking Christ...
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) 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) That should work for awhile. She posts some of the goofiest things sometimes.
"Lets [sic] rent a room." ~ Jethro Tull to Rotara
Goldi speaks jive/ebonics:
"Lets [sic] rent a room." ~ Jethro Tull to Rotara
Those blinded by hate will never see reason. Goldi-Lox posted on 2010-07-23 11:04:29 ET Reply Trace
I think she's gotten so senile she doesn't even see the irony when she posts....
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) She's really hitting them out of the park today.
Goldi's Vagina Monologue: If I had one, I'd be looking for some place to bury it. Goldi-Lox posted on 2010-07-22 16:31:18 ET Reply Trace
Goldi plays investigator:
"Lets [sic] rent a room." ~ Jethro Tull to Rotara
Obviously she's taking his Kenyan birth certificate out of the country for safe keeping. I'm disappointed that Goldi didn't realize that.
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!
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) She fails to mention South Africa or Aruba.
"See in my line of work, you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." --- George W. Bush (Rochester NY, 5-24-2005)
"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?
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) 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.
There is no right to murder. If there was you'd probably be dead.
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?
Jury nullification. Worked for OJ!
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?
So once again I ask, where in the constitution does it give explicit (or even tacit) authority to preside over such matters? The Constitution is a law of the United States. Furthermore under common law, which the US does follow, precedent is law as well.
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?
Chuckles...another "special" one...
That's what the second amendment is for.
Ahyup!
Well...the idea of the USCON was that mechanisms for peaceful conflict resolution would be put into place. The SCOTUS is one such mechanism.
Which has failed due to congress's failure to limit justices to "a term of good behavior". There's been a lot of bad behavior going on there, and they haven’t done squat!
I was channeling the "me firsters".
Is there an objective measure for that?
Furthermore under common law, which the US does follow, precedent is law as well. Nice try. Nobody has yet to answer my question.
That's not what section 2 states. But again, nice try.
Well...there's a difference between answering a question and having that answer accepted. Your question was answered and it was answered correctly.
Sure it does: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States...
It's just about run its course. Next step: CE hates you and wants you banned.
Badeye has a gay crush on ABBA
Nah...CE and have enough to agree about as well...
being the key phrase. This portion of the law is decided at the state level, not Federal. And since this area of law (abortions) is not covered by the Constitution, and cannot be construed as being decided by Federal law, the SCOTUS has no jurisdiction in this regard. I'll use the summary from wiki. If you want to argue with them, then have a happy... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution Subject-matter jurisdiction Federal question jurisdiction: cases arising under the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties Article Three is not self-executing concerning the subject-matter over which federal courts can have jurisdiction. The Congress decides, from the subject- matter specified in Article Three, what jurisdiction the federal courts will have. Indeed, Justice John G. Roberts recommended it be overturned on that basis. Later, during confirmation hearings, he recanted. An interesting analysis of this question comes from the Federalist blog, at http://federalistblog.us/2006/01/why_roe_v_wade_not_considered_constitutional.ht ml I'll tackle this question since I have received three similar ones since the Alito hearing's began. A woman can be said to have a right to abortion just as much as she would have a right to decide on a root canal. The problem though is, it isn't neither a constitutional or federal issue -- but an issue of the people through their own State legislative process to determine. The US Constitution did not invest any jurisdiction with the federal government or the Supreme Court over the life and liberties of the people. When the Constitution was finally ratified, it had nothing to say about the federal government being the sole caretaker and protector of the peoples liberties for a very good reason according to James Madison: "The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all objects, which concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people." The Fourteenth Amendment's primary author, John A. Bingham, reaffirmed James Madison's exact words during the debates and further declared that he has "always believed that the protection in time of peace within the States of all rights of person and citizen was of the powers reserved to the States." Bingham's initial Fourteenth Amendment proposal was soundly rejected because it was seen as giving the federal government jurisdiction over the lives and liberties of the people. James Madison's initial Bill of Rights was rejected for these same reasons because he originally attempted to make the Bill of Rights a limitation upon the States as well as with Congress. Not many in Congress in 1789 and 1866 were inclined to give both Congress and the federal courts such jurisdiction. Instead, the 14th Amendment imposed its limitation directly upon the States, thereby bypassing giving Congress direct jurisdiction over the deprivation of life, liberty and property of the people without due process for violation of law made criminal. Justice O'Connor reiterates these above principles when she quoted Chief Justice Warren Burger: Irrespective of what we may believe is wise or prudent policy in this difficult area, "the Constitution does not constitute us as ‘Platonic Guardians' nor does it vest in this Court the authority to strike down laws because they do not meet our standards of desirable social policy, ‘wisdom,' or ‘common sense.'" Bingham himself quoted Chief Justice John Marshall as affirming that any new expansive powers that are neither expressly granted, or enumerated in the Constitution, is forbidden: "The Constitution of the United States is one of limited and expressly delegated powers which can only be exercised as granted, or in cases enumerated." So far I have highlighted the fact that the US Supreme Court was not given any jurisdiction to rule on anything like Roe v. Wade, and therefore, the ruling has no Constitutional basis for which obligates anyone to treat it with respect or dignity. There is an another troubling aspect to Roe v. Wade that has to do with justices’ vile and repugnant disregard for another US Constitution principle: Article VI. Article VI, requires: "...judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." What is very disturbing about Roe is how seven justices of the court could find it so easy to disregard their oaths. When a Supreme Court justice takes both of his/her oaths (justices take two oaths) he or she is not bounding themselves to upholding prior precedent -- but only the US Constitution itself. Justices who are unwilling to take their oaths seriously are justices unfit to sit on the US Supreme Court and render justice because there can never be justice with such justices. The right to abortion is an important right that should be decided by those who do indeed have the right to decide it: the people themselves through their own local legislative representatives.
Your question was answered and it was answered correctly. Do you understand the concept of "Federalism?" I suggest you research the areas that you are talking about... not from your own personal agenda (pro-choice vs. pro-life), since it's utterly irrelevant. I'm not impressed by your glib answer, because it's superficial and wrong.
The right to privacy IS a constitutional issue. Your premise is flawed. The issue of communications between doctor and patient is an issue of common law and, absent any federal legislation to the contrary, thus reviewable by the supreme court. The Congress decides, from the subject- matter specified in Article Three, what jurisdiction the federal courts will have. Actually, that misstates Congress' power in Article III [as an aside, it's interesting to note that there is a widespread school of thought that Congress' powers are restricted to Article I and here we are discussing Congress' A3 powers] which states: "In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." In essence, it's stating that the Congress can limit the SCOTUS appelate jurisdiction. If the Congress does not so limit then the SCOTUS is not limited. A big difference from how that power is characterized in your missive.
If I'd have written the thesis 26 years ago, I'd have an MA in International Affairs...yea...I understand the concept of Federalism. I'm not impressed by your glib answer, because it's superficial and wrong. It's not "wrong" in any way. The reason there is an argument is because you DISAGREE with the answer. Not because one wasn't given.
That's a specious point. The fact is, in Federalist 78, Hamilton CLEARLY states that the function of the court is to strike down laws repugnant to the Constitution. Madison makes no qualification as to what the law...an incorrect exercise of power...a law which attempts to negate a right. Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void. As this doctrine is of great importance in all the American constitutions, a brief discussion of the ground on which it rests cannot be unacceptable. There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. But it is not with a view to infractions of the Constitution only, that the independence of the judges may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society. These sometimes extend no farther than to the injury of the private rights of particular classes of citizens, by unjust and partial laws. Here also the firmness of the judicial magistracy is of vast importance in mitigating the severity and confining the operation of such laws. It not only serves to moderate the immediate mischiefs of those which may have been passed, but it operates as a check upon the legislative body in passing them; who, perceiving that obstacles to the success of iniquitous intention are to be expected from the scruples of the courts, are in a manner compelled, by the very motives of the injustice they meditate, to qualify their attempts. -A Hamilton Federalist 78
And addressed via Amendment V. Of course it's limited... By Article III, section II. The areas that are specified where it has authority, are laid out for you, already. Big-government shills always resort to Hamilton, when they want to justify the power-grab by the Federal government. After all, it was Jefferson who argued (successfully) that the power of the state should be limited, and his argument won the day (in the Constitution). Hamilton was pushing for an American monarchy... so I would recommend you take what he wrote with a 50-lb. bag of salt. But back to your point- you say the power of "the SCOTUS is not limited..." You might want to hang out with Hondo more... He could teach you a few things, that your "MA in International Affairs" program seemed to have missed. I'm done with this discussion. If you're stuck on glib fallacies, then I can't make you think beyond your superficial arguments... So spending any more time with you on this subject, is a waste. Regards,
BY what Title/Chapter/Section US Code please? That limitation is WHOLLY contingent upon the US CONgress effecting a law which either immunizes the law from Supreme Court scrutiny OR narrows the scope of its jurisdiction. ..."with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." It's not "already" made but subject to the will of Congress. Big-government shills always resort to Hamilton That's your counter argument to Hamiton 78? What exactly is quoted in 78 that you believe I've misapplied. His words seem pretty clear to me. That the court is yet another check on legislative overreach. But back to your point- you say the power of "the SCOTUS is not limited..." I did not state it in that broad of a context. ...reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. ...the states OR the people. Who decides? I'm done with this discussion. Of COURSE you are. Not that you ever began it.
Amendment V is about various process prohibitions and has zipola to do with this.
I suggest you go back to wherever your "degree" was awarded... ask for a refund. You didn't learn a damned thing. Pity.
Chuckles...why not try to construct a cogent argument or, better yet, deconstruct mine if you believe it to be feeble. Thus, I soundly reject your ipse dixit. But you did give me a very good laugh with your Hamilton comment. So, at the least, keep the comedy coming.
BTW, I appreciate you using my material but I do insist that you give me credit.
>>Furthermore under common law, which the US does follow, precedent is law as well. Nice try. Nobody has yet to answer my question. You aren't looking for an answer. Read Marbury V. Madison if you want.
"To suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous liberals,
or to quit halfterm, and by opposing, rake in speaking fees." - ShakesPalin
#2. To: war (#0)
Wooo-Hooo!! Republicans are poised to win in November.
#3. To: war (#0)
#4. To: Skip Intro (#1)
#5. To: Fred Mertz (#3)
#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.
#7. To: Murron (#6)
#8. To: Murron (#6)
#9. To: Fred Mertz (#8)
#10. To: Fred Mertz (#7)
(Edited)
That should work for awhile. She posts some of the goofiest things sometimes.
#11. To: Fred Mertz (#8)
"To suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous liberals,
or to quit halfterm, and by opposing, rake in speaking fees." - ShakesPalin
#12. To: Fred Mertz (#8)
#13. To: Skip Intro (#11)
#14. To: Fred Mertz (#13)
Goldi plays investigator:
"To suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous liberals,
or to quit halfterm, and by opposing, rake in speaking fees." - ShakesPalin
#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."
#16. To: war (#0)
(Edited)
You wanna find the black hole for money? Look there.
#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)
#20. To: war (#0)
#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?
#26. To: war (#21)
That said, our rights aren't flexible from state to state.
#27. To: war (#25)
To: Capitalist Eric
#28. To: A K A Stone (#26)
There is no right to murder.
#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)
#32. To: Capitalist Eric (#27)
>>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.
#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.
#35. To: hondo68 (#33)
We're on number three, headed for 4.
#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.
#38. To: lucysmom (#36)
#39. To: war (#38)
The SCOTUS is one such mechanism.
#40. To: war (#38)
#41. To: hondo68 (#39)
There's been a lot of bad behavior going on there, and they haven’t done squat!
#42. To: Rhino (#32)
The Constitution is a law of the United States.
#43. To: war (#29)
Any time the issue of "power" encroaching a "right" is litigated, it is subject matter for the SCOTUS.
#44. To: Capitalist Eric (#42)
#45. To: Capitalist Eric (#43)
#46. To: war (#45)
#47. To: Abu el Banat (#46)
#48. To: war (#45)
arising under this Constitution...
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and not courts of general jurisdiction. Courts of limited jurisdiction can hear and decide cases that involve only certain subject matter. This limited subject-matter jurisdiction extends to:
Ambassador jurisdiction: cases involving ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls
Admiralty jurisdiction: cases involving navigable waters
Federal party jurisdiction: cases in which the United States is a party
State jurisdiction: cases between two or more states
Diversity jurisdiction: cases between citizens of different states
Land grants jurisdiction: cases between citizens of the same state claiming land under the grants of different states
Alienage jurisdiction: cases between a state and a foreign state;
citizens of a state and a foreign state;
citizens of a state and citizens or subjects of a foreign state; or a state and citizens of another state, or citizens or subjects of a foreign state, where the state is the initial plaintiff. Q: Why is Roe v. Wade not considered constitutional law?
#49. To: war (#44)
Well...there's a difference between answering a question and having that answer accepted.
#50. To: Capitalist Eric (#48)
(Edited)
#51. To: Capitalist Eric (#49)
(Edited)
Do you understand the concept of "Federalism?"
#52. To: Capitalist Eric (#48)
(Edited)
When the Constitution was finally ratified, it had nothing to say about the federal government being the sole caretaker and protector of the peoples liberties
The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.
#53. To: war, hondo68 (#50)
The right to privacy IS a constitutional issue. Your premise is flawed.
In essence, it's stating that the Congress can limit the SCOTUS appelate jurisdiction. If the Congress does not so limit then the SCOTUS is not limited.
That's a specious point. The fact is, in Federalist 78, Hamilton CLEARLY states ...
Hondo68: Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
#54. To: Capitalist Eric (#53)
(Edited)
Of course it's limited...
#55. To: Capitalist Eric (#53)
And addressed via Amendment V.
#56. To: war (#54)
#57. To: Capitalist Eric (#56)
#58. To: Capitalist Eric (#56)
I suggest you go back to wherever your "degree" was awarded... ask for a refund.
#59. To: Capitalist Eric (#42)
>> The Constitution is a law of the United States.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]