Not My Government | Forum | |
https://notmygovernment.us/forum/NMG.pl
Insurgency Agents >> Wolves in Sheeps Clothing >> Thomas E. Woods, Jr. https://notmygovernment.us/forum/NMG.pl?num=1300219376 Message started by LB Bork on Mar 15th, 2011 at 3:03pm |
Title: Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Post by LB Bork on Mar 15th, 2011 at 3:03pm
Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Just goes to show you what they teach one in college: What to think. I believe Helen Keller said the same thing about college. It appears that her blindness provided her with some clarity. Kudos to Helen! Oh, and furthermore, the Mises Institute? It is Austrian, where the Illuminati is grounded. Hmmm... Can the Institute really be trusted? Just a thought on this one. Yes, I am talking the 'C' word: Conspiracy. Oh, sorry... Silly me, rather a "Conspiracy Theory". Here is the new Introduction in the updated, Historical Error, to combat his stupidity...
has given impetus to the refining of my explanation on Section 2 of the 14th Amendment. —LB Bork To assist in your decision, here is some more input for you... One of our people engaged him on the 14th Amendment issues on Face Book. The Face Booker stated that it appears that Tom likes the piece of conspiratorial garbage known as the 14th Amendment. Well, knock me over with a feather on that one. Oh, the Face Booker that debated Tom is no longer a Face Book buddy of Toms. Seems like Tom did not like his authority to be questioned. I wonder if Tom has one of those neat Masonic rings and does their funny handshakes? Or perhaps he is just one of the useful idiots out there. SO, is Thomas Woods a money making guy in the spotlight, or a un/knowing Useful Idiot? Hey, Tom... Bill has something to say to you... Be sure you read Historical Error : www.pacinlaw.us/error I am working on a paper to show how "Nullification" is a fruitless endeavor also. Oh, and does anyone want to send Tom a Not My Government Darkside Member T-Shirt? Applicable definitions from the Island Makers Project (IMP) to assist you in understanding the problem. The following are taken from the IMP Lexicon found at the Island Makers Project site:
Maintainers. Individuals and organizations of numerous kinds that use various methods to maintain control of America through the 14th Amendment political and legal system. Such entities are generally beneficiaries of what the system produces, hence have a pecuniary (profit) interest as motivation. See Gate Keeper, and Lapdog Gate Keeper. This is a person or organization that is put in place to keep people pacified with a certain level of information. Such is of purpose to guard the whole truth of what the real problem may be. See Maintainers Lapdog. As a general rule, a person who is under the control of another due to the lack of critical thought. Such persons may be subsidized in some fashion which may include monetary gain or immunity. See Maintainers Tool. Someone that is used to further an agenda with, or without, monetary gain. Such types sometimes lack the ability of critical thought and are either seeking a controlling position over others or looking for a position of recognition. See Lapdog, and Maintainers |
Title: Re: Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Post by David C on Mar 16th, 2011 at 3:26am
Here is a link to some info that might be of interest to you on the Null. paper. The PDF is 29MB,
scroll through the TOC to the Null. chapter for a little bit of history on the subject. You would think someone educated in history like old Tommy boy would know that nullification has never worked in post 14th Amendment history. Why is it that people choose to battle the Beast with useless weapons? How sad. |
Title: Re: Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Post by Shadowcaster on Mar 25th, 2011 at 5:59pm
That is a pretty nifty T-shirt. How much does it cost? They might make good presents for all US citizens.
|
Title: Re: Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Post by LB Bork on Mar 25th, 2011 at 7:20pm wrote on Mar 25th, 2011 at 5:59pm:
Are you buying [smiley=wink.gif] |
Title: Tom Woods: Nullification Plan Post by LB Bork on Mar 25th, 2011 at 7:26pm
Tom Woods: Nullification Plan.
1) States tell Feds to take a hike. 2) Feds tell the States to take a hike, no more funds for you. 3) US citizens still have to send all their money via income tax to Feds. They don't pay, their property is taken and/or get free prison visit. Who wins? The Feds. Whose side is this guy on, anyway [smiley=uhuh.gif] |
Title: Re: Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Post by Federal Farmer on Mar 26th, 2011 at 9:54am
Apparently Thomas didn't learn anything from the first time the states tried to take Federal property without paying for it, which was just a few forts, dockyards, magazines and a few needful buildings back then, this time it's all the nationals of the United States, every "legal entity" engaged in commerce and commercial capacity using the Federal Reserve's debt/credit system, which is pretty much every chattel and real property in the states. Can we see what Roman scholasticism, revived by Pope Gregory VII, which evolved into the modern university system, has done to the brains of supposed "educated" men? These scholars cannot see past and are unwilling to climb over or look around the walls and ivory towers they build for themselves.
It is too bad, because I have enjoyed reading Thomas Woods' books. |
Title: Re: Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Post by LB Bork on Mar 26th, 2011 at 12:12pm Federal Farmer wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 9:54am:
Yes, I am thinking Tom does not understand that history and law do not mix. Speaking of which, FF... Does Thomas ever mention the paramount law of the land?...
|
Title: Re: Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Post by David C on Mar 27th, 2011 at 12:44pm
There seems to be a lack of understanding on Mr. Woods' part of the nature of the beast he proposes to slay. What he promotes has been found, in fact and law, to be historically over-ruled. What he promotes, therefore, could be deemed as rebellion to the current regime and prosecuted as terrorism. People must understand that unless the remedy they seek is found in the current laws set up under this system, what they seek to accomplish will be deemed unlawful and they will be subject to the penalties thereof.
The liberties and remedies Mr. Woods proposes, like the liberties and remedies of other patriotic-minded groups and people, are indeed virtuous and desirable. Yet unless such liberties and remedies are sought within the boundaries of law, such things simply rise to the level and definition of rebellion and revolution, which the current regime can lawfully, albeit arbitrarily, prosecute as terrorism. I, therefore, advise such patriotic groups and people to take careful heed to their actions, unless they are prepared to declare an actual and real revolutionary war against the current regime. For such a beast as this will not go away quietly nor without a brutal fight. Form a real and present threat against the power and rule of this regime, and I promise you will see the true face of this beast. |
Title: Similar position of Woods on the 14th Post by LB Bork on Mar 27th, 2011 at 6:43pm
A simple position/argument why the language that is found in the "Reconstruction
Acts" has nothing to do with the "Reconstruction Amendments". Counter-position to Tom Woods' reasoning when he states that Section 2 of the 14th is not used any longer. A note I sent to someone who fails to understand... It is my position that the four statutes known as Reconstruction Acts are just fraudulently based political blather meant to confuse the issue. So, aside the mention of the installment of the 14th amendment noted in the Acts, here are just a couple of simple points that destroy any thought that the language in the "Acts" having anything to do with the Reconstruction Amendments... 1) The Act's language in all sections is referencing rebellion against the United States (which has been ruled unconstitutional by the courts [i.e., the states cannot rebel against what they created]; Andrew Johnson's VETO expresses that in so many words). ERGO: The States were not in rebellion against the United States, as a matter of law. Wherefore, understanding the Constitution lacked authority for "rebellion" against the "United States" the SOBs had to fix the problem... But not really... That conversion / usurpation of the political systems of the rightful states was always the goal (of "their" 14th)... 2) The language in these" Acts" pertains to rebellion 'against the' United States, not the individual 'States' as Historical Error encompasses. In example, the language is different in this clause that you appear to be confused by:
Of course they throw in some more garbage to confuse the issue:
All these Acts are about is nonsensical horse hockey to put up a smoke screen to get the 14th Amendment put in place. AGAIN: The 14th Amendment makes the States rebel 'against their' lawful states (govs), not the "United States". Moreover, I had made many other comments in Historical Error to cover any other unfounded ideas you have rolling around in your head that you seem so willing to want to force on me. The most accurate point I make is that the 14th Amendment applies and/or has an affect on all the states, not just the so-called "Rebel States". The Acts should have taken care of the matters therein noted... So why put the same crap in the 14th Amendment? Further, the guys who were so-called "rebels" have been dead for well over 100 years... So why put that same crap of "the time" in the 14th Amendment? Further, all current Constitutional notations established that Section 2 of the 14th Amendment "overwrites the representation" clause in Art. I, Sec. 2 of the Constitution... So why would any "purported relevant outdated" crap be found in the 14th Amendment? Further, the Acts relate that the disenfranchised rebels had gained back their voting rights and representation... So why does the crap in the 14th Amendment establish "that the representation is reduced" in its Sec. 2? One big DUH there!... I mean, is this really hard to figure out? So Jim, some questions for you here:
• Do you understand what the "Shell Game" is? • Do you understand what "words and phrases" are? • Do you understand grammar in any way, shape, or form? • Do you understand the concept of sequence of events (based on date/time)? • Do you understand someone filled your head with the nonsense you tried to sell me? Maybe you got these nonsensical ideas from guys like Thomas Woods. LOL In closing...
instead of shutting down after the first two paragraphs of a 16 page explanation. 2) Perhaps you owe me an apology. Or, here is one of my quotes: Alas, my freedom suffers for I am surrounded by dumb people. You see, jealously and false judgment against people can make one blind. Regards, LB [humble Bork reappears] Reconstruction Acts here... Chap. CLIII-Sec. 5. Provided, That no person excluded from the privilege of holding office by said proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States, shall be eligible to election as a member of the convention to frame a constitution for any of said rebel States, nor shall any such person vote for members of such convention. [BORK Comment: Right, the real purpose of the 14th Amendment... The ones not willing to rebel against their lawful governments cannot participate ] _____________ Reconstruction Acts, from Wikipedia After the end of the Civil War, as part of the on-going process of Reconstruction, the United States Congress passed four statutes known as Reconstruction Acts (March 2, 1867 (39 Cong. Ch. 153; 14 Stat. 428), March 23, 1867 (40 Cong. Ch. 6; 15 Stat. 2), July 19, 1867 (40 Cong. Ch. 30; 15 Stat. 14), March 11, 1868 (ch. 25, 15 Stat. 41)). The acts' main points included:
which had ratified the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and was readmitted to the Union • Requiring congressional approval for new state constitutions (which were required for Confederate states to rejoin the Union) • Confederate states give voting rights to all men. • All former Confederate states must ratify the 14th Amendment Later, when the case Ex Parte McCardle came to the Supreme Court, Congress feared that the court may strike the Reconstruction Acts down as unconstitutional, at which point Congress repealed the Habeas Corpus act of 1867 to revoke the Supreme Court's appellate power to hear the case. |
Title: Re: Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Post by David C on May 5th, 2011 at 6:12pm
Here is another article on the nullification fiasco being presented by Thomas, showing through historical documents that those in the nullification movement aren't being told all the truth.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=46525 With Thomas' apparently extensive background in historical studies and knowledge, I can find no other alternative conclusion but that Thomas is misleading the American people for ulterior motives. What those motives might be is for now only known to God. A quote from the article gives rise to some thoughts...(of motives?) Webster, like the Founders before him, argued that if a state disapproved an action of the federal government, it had a right to seek redress in federal court or to amend the Constitution, but it had no constitutional right simply to nullify a federal law – that to do so would produce anarchy and eventually could result in a sectional or a civil war. In fact, he predicted that nullification would cause the Union to dissolve and that the American flag, “drenched…in fraternal blood,” would wave over “the broken and dishonored fragments of our once glorious empire.” |
Title: Re: Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Post by LB Bork on Sep 20th, 2011 at 10:31am
Allright, someone told me the other day that Mr. Woods is a Catholic. Is this true?
If he is, it would explain a lot of why he does what he does... Got Jesuits? |
Title: Re: Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Post by LB Bork on Jul 29th, 2012 at 9:24am
Yup, It is official. Tom Woods is a NWO shill. Got Jesuits?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYcI9KzlIIk Really wish I has more time to expose this guy. Anyone want to help? |
Title: Re: Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Post by Jerry on Jul 30th, 2012 at 2:54pm
So for a man to do something good it must have came from the catholic church :=( Instead of GOD.
|
Not My Government | Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.4. YaBB © 2000-2011. All Rights Reserved. |