Ernest Hancock
Letters to the Editor • Obama Administration
Obama would take the oath on January 20 behind closed doors without the presence of the press
Donna,
Since apparently Ernie can't read perhaps you might read this to
him. Below is a short passage from a document entitled, What Is Acceptance
for Value? I'm referencing it because of a short conversation Ernie and I
had about Obama and his flubbing of his oath at his 2009 inauguration. It was
actually John Roberts' flubbing the administration of the oath that caused the
problem. Even the Chief Justice is only human!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=274_VdeckAU
It shouldn't matter
because, so they claim, Obama re-took the oath in private the following day to
correct the error. My concern is that "no picture (video), no proof." The most
recent of the oaths is what I believe is the one that matters.
The reason
I brought it up to begin with was recent reports that Obama would take the oath
on January 20 behind closed doors without the presence of the press. (Even the
lapdogs aren't happy about it!) Then, I think, he is to retake it publicly on
Monday the 21st at the public inauguration. If so, then we are to (again?) take
their word for it that he took the proper Oath as required by Article 2, Section
1, Clause 8 of the Constitution. I guess it will only be germaine to any
Presidential actions he takes between the two administrations of the oath and
his genuine authority take them.
I guess my only real point is; the Oath
matters, as outlined below:
" 'Value' is anything recognized as a pledge
or the result of a pledge. The birth
certificate is the result of the
Presidents oath. Without that one oath, the birth
certificate would just
be evidence of the obligation every U.S. citizen owes to the
United States. Without that one oath, the birth certificate would not be evidence of
the
obligation the United States owes to the people. On the public side, the birth
certificate represents value, and is evidence of a pledge by a U.S. citizen
to be a
surety for the United States. On the public side, it is security
for the pledge of
allegiance to the United States and its statutes, made by
U.S. citizens. On the private
side, it is a receipt, and is evidence of a
promise (Oath) made by the President to the people.
On the private side, it
is security for the promise of distributions from the trust to the
people as
beneficiaries. It is a receipt for the use of the babys physical description
that was symbolically delivered by an informant (Mom) to the United States. The
setoff resulting from accepting an instrument for value is a
distribution from the trust.
Setoff = distribution."
We won't get
into Obama's birth certificate :-)
Love to all,
- Mike
Watch Streaming Broadcast Live:
LRN.fm
DLive
Telegram
11 Comments in Response to Obama would take the oath on January 20 behind closed doors without the presence of the press
Uniform Commercial Code
§ 2-721. Remedies for Fraud.
Remedies for material misrepresentation or fraud include all remedies available under this Article for non-fraudulent breach. Neither rescission or a claim for rescission of the contract for sale nor rejection or return of the goods shall bar or be deemed inconsistent with a claim for damages or other remedy.
US Constitution
Article I
SECTION. 10.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confedera-
tion; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money;
emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver
Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of At-
tainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation
of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
The Social Security Act
Sec. 3121(e)(2).
For purposes of this chapter --
(2) United States. The term "United States" when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa.
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/alert.htm
Your welcome, PureTrust,
"The examination of your denial is the beginning of your rebuttal, unless you like it the way it is."
Now that is well said! In other words, your righteous denial should be the impetus for your proper rebuttal. In the land of fiction we've been impressed into, the pen IS mightier than the sword. It is used to empower real men, acting in fictional capacity, to wield their swords against real men who are unaware of, or in denial (without rebuttal) of their fictional status.
Protest, as most people understand the term, is denial. Voting is acceptance of the way it is. Larken's initial response to what I presented is pure denial - absent rebuttal. I appreciate that it comes from the inevitable anger of one who has been subjected to the tender mercies of the system. I think he should channel that anger into properly crafting his rebuttal. Of course, that's a lot easier said than done. One must always be aware, with regard to the system; "It's nothing personal, it's only business."
Thanks, Mike. You gotta start somewhere. The examination of your denial is the beginning of your rebuttal, unless you like it the way it is.
If you rebut something that doesn't exist in reality - such as you, the human being, being being forced into their system by their paperwork - you first need to recognize that it is their paperwork that is the fiction, not you. It's politics. It's about who can convince whom that something is real or a fiction. It is about the times that the mightier pen is the lie. And it is about separating things that do not belong together, like you and all the fictional characters created by all the documents you signed not knowing that you were creating fictional characters.
Proper acceptance of the SSN, done with the correct understanding of what it is, may be very beneficial for life in America, since the whole of the American nation as written up in the legal documents and legal records is a fiction. One person who has tried to teach this is Eric Madsen of TeamLaw at http://www.teamlaw.net/.
PureTrust,
If you were born in a hospital in one of the states, then they issued a Hospital Birth Record which began your transition to U.S. citizenship and the monetization of your future labor.. If you subsequently applied for a Social Security Card, completed a form W4, and submitted a form 1040 then you sanctioned that citizenship; at least as far as the system is concerned. It will deal with you based on the presumption that you are a U.S. citizen who has pledged to back its debt until you gain the knowledge and complete the process of rebutting their presumption. Denial does not equal rebuttal. Acceptance, both literal and figurative, is a requisite part of the process.
- Mike
Were you born within the Untied States? Were you born on D.C. land, or in a U.S. fort or other holding that has been ceded to the United States by a State. Or were you simply born in a State. If you were simply born in a State, and have not become a naturalized citizen of the United States by formally taking the oath of citizenship, then you are not a United States citizen, and you are lying if you say that you are; it doesn't matter how much you are accepted by United States Governmental agencies that you are a citizen of the U.S., if you were born in a State, and not naturalized within the United States, you are not a United States citizen.
If you decide that you want to monetize a whole bunch of Japanese citizens in Japan, and those Japanese citizens accept your monetizing of them, and/or if you can convince someone that you have monetized someone else, then you can monetize anyone you choose... anyone anywhere in the whole world. And it doesn't matter. The whole point is that if you can get the military and law enforcement to accept the idea that you monetized someone, then the "monetization" becomes a point and part of conquest by force. So, monetizing is just a sneaky way to forcefully conquer the United States and the Americans (State Citizens) therein... and finally the whole world.
Wake up to this so that - as Ernie says slightly differently - freedom can start between YOUR ears.
The sage of old wrote:
Ask not wherefore former days are better days than these. Thou dost not inquire wisely concerning this.
Like many, I doubt the existence or the occurrence of a period of time immediately following the ratification of the Constitution that could in anywise be called "The Glory Days of the Republic" or "The Golden Age of Liberty in the USoA"
Nonetheless, all the oaths of office in the Constitution require allegiance to it, not to any person, any party, or any other entity. In 1789, this would have been a step in the right direction.
Given the ensuing events, I doubt whether any words or any actions on the part of any person or generation of persons would have or could have done anything to compel an unwilling or devious party to honor the commitments written in the Constitution.
The conundrum is the human condition. The source of the problem is homo sapiens, The only (however dimly) hopeful place to find a source of a solution is also homo sapiens.
DC Treybil
The Electoral College vote on December 20 must have a quorum of States to confirm Obama's election, but if just 17 Republican Governors/States boycott the vote and prevent a quorum, then by law, the House of Representatives selects the president of its choice, and the Senate selects the VP, and Obama is TOAST !! Lets all push the Republicans to do this, such an easy resolve to the MISTAKE voters made in 2008/2012.
Larken,
I agree with your sentiment wholeheartedly, BUT... it is by that process of taking legal TITLE to your body, and its future labor potential, that they have built their entire feudal system. You been monetized, brother. Literally. You can protest, rant and rave, stomp, spit..., whatever; but as far as they're concerned they have your pledge to secure their debt. That's the bad news.
The good news is that, while it is anything but easy, you can undo the situation. You might consider subscribing the the yahoo group Reclaim-Your-Securities to find out more about why the system has evolved this way, as well as some clues as to how you can fix it - for yourself. There is no collective solution. There never is. But you're not a collectivist anyway, right?
Did you really just refer to "the obligation every U.S. citizen owes to the United States"? Um, I owe no allegiance, no loyalty, no obedience, to anyone claiming or pretending to be "government." Obsessing over whether the right magic words were said, and theorizing about "legal" technicalities, completely misses the only point that matters. One person cannot have the right to rule another. Even if elections, constitutions, oaths, legislation, appointments, or anything else claims otherwise, I own myself, and I am beholden to no external "authority." To bicker over procedure and technicalities is accept legitimacy to a system which is 100% bogus. You might as well argue that someone didn't pull the sword out of the rock at the proper angle. Who gives a crap? Either way, there is no such thing as a rightful king. Or President. Or "government."