The People's Awareness Coalition Forum
Page LogOn Time : • Greetings, concerned American. Note most topics reserved for members only. We welcome you to Register.
Home
Events
Search
Help
Login
Register
Latest Posts Help Center
Thread
Print this Topic
Thomas E. Woods, Jr. (Read 20111 times)
LB Bork
NMG Global Moderator
**
Posts: 1897

PAC Groups
PAC Staff
SN Society
Git 'er Done!
Gender: gender.Male
Country of Illinois
 
Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Mar 15th, 2011 at 3:03pm
Alert Moderator about this Post. 
Thomas E. Woods, Jr. 
      ...
    BIO: Thomas E. Woods, Jr., is the New York Times bestselling author of eleven books. A senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Woods holds a bachelor's degree in history from Harvard and his master's, M. Phil., and Ph.D. from Columbia University. /

    Wow! That is really impressive!
Needless to say, I told him a couple years ago he had Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment wrong. He was nice enough to acknowledge but ignored the message. Now Thomas Woods is providing the people more bad information on a thing called "Nullification". It is the latest patriot fad sweeping the country! Wow!

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...

    It has been said that in war the victor writes the history. Having that in mind...
                         
    I dedicate this thesis to Thomas E. Woods, Jr.  who, regarding his ignorance of law and false teachings
    has given impetus to the refining of my explanation on Section 2 of the 14th Amendment.
    —LB Bork
SO, is Thomas Woods friend or foe?

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:
    Disinformation. Intentional bad information that is meant to mislead someone. Such type of information is usually spread by maintainers or agent provocateurs. See Misinformation

    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
Also, this information on how to detect disinformation and its agents:
Back to Top
‹‹Last Edit: Aug 27th, 2011 at 10:09am by LB Bork ››

...


"There is Tranquility in Ignorance, but Servitude is its Partner."  —me
Visit the Website LB Bork
IP Logged
David C
Sophomore
**
Posts: 110

PAC Groups
PAC Staff
Those who seek will find!
Gender: gender.Male
Sioux Falls, South Dakota
 
Re: Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Reply #1 - Mar 16th, 2011 at 3:26am
Alert Moderator about this Post. 
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.
Back to Top
‹‹Last Edit: Mar 16th, 2011 at 10:08pm by LB Bork ››
wickerw-ttn
IP Logged
Shadowcaster
Ex Member
Re: Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Reply #2 - Mar 25th, 2011 at 5:59pm
Alert Moderator about this Post. 
That is a pretty nifty T-shirt. How much does it cost? They might make good presents for all US citizens.
Back to Top
IP Logged
LB Bork
NMG Global Moderator
**
Posts: 1897

PAC Groups
PAC Staff
SN Society
Git 'er Done!
Gender: gender.Male
Country of Illinois
 
Re: Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Reply #3 - Mar 25th, 2011 at 7:20pm
Alert Moderator about this Post. 
Quote:
That is a pretty nifty T-shirt. How much does it cost? They might make good presents for all US citizens.


Are you buying  Smiley
Back to Top

...


"There is Tranquility in Ignorance, but Servitude is its Partner."  —me
Visit the Website LB Bork
IP Logged
LB Bork
NMG Global Moderator
**
Posts: 1897

PAC Groups
PAC Staff
SN Society
Git 'er Done!
Gender: gender.Male
Country of Illinois
 
Tom Woods: Nullification Plan
Reply #4 - Mar 25th, 2011 at 7:26pm
Alert Moderator about this Post. 
Tom Woods: Nullification Plan.

    Nullification in a nutshell...

    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.
Smells like a plan to me. Thanks Tom!

Whose side is this guy on, anyway  Smiley


...
Back to Top
‹‹Last Edit: Mar 26th, 2011 at 12:45pm by LB Bork ››

...


"There is Tranquility in Ignorance, but Servitude is its Partner."  —me
Visit the Website LB Bork
IP Logged
Federal Farmer
Junior
***
Posts: 260

PAC Groups
PAC Staff
SN Society
proud Iowa national
 
Re: Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Reply #5 - Mar 26th, 2011 at 9:54am
Alert Moderator about this Post. 
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.
Back to Top

"There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 14:12

"The works of His hands are verity and judgment; all His commandments are sure.
They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness."  Psalm 111:7,8

"The weed of democracy must be pulled up by it's 14th Amendment root."  F.F., Iowa national
IP Logged
LB Bork
NMG Global Moderator
**
Posts: 1897

PAC Groups
PAC Staff
SN Society
Git 'er Done!
Gender: gender.Male
Country of Illinois
 
Re: Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Reply #6 - Mar 26th, 2011 at 12:12pm
Alert Moderator about this Post. 
Federal Farmer wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 9:54am:
It is too bad, because I have enjoyed reading Thomas Woods' books.

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?...

  • God (or Creator). The paramount Sovereign of the Universe, hence the Land. The United States Constitution recognizes such fact as it is only the "supreme" law of the land. Under international law, a "state" or a "king" is considered sovereign. See King Nothing
  • King Nothing. One that calls himself a "sovereign". In American law, the bodies politic are sovereign in their totality, not each individual. When people are a member of a body politic they are subject to, at minimum, the public law under a constitution. See God, Sovereign Citizen
  • Sovereign Citizen. This is a person who believes that he or she is someone that is under the original constitutional system, but usually has not followed any recognized legal process to claim it. Moreover, the term is somewhat an oxymoron as no individual was ever considered individually sovereign under the system of law in the United States. Most people who use the term cannot even explain what it means.
The point? Those people who are Godless will never get it.
Back to Top

...


"There is Tranquility in Ignorance, but Servitude is its Partner."  —me
Visit the Website LB Bork
IP Logged
David C
Sophomore
**
Posts: 110

PAC Groups
PAC Staff
Those who seek will find!
Gender: gender.Male
Sioux Falls, South Dakota
 
Re: Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Reply #7 - Mar 27th, 2011 at 12:44pm
Alert Moderator about this Post. 
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.
Back to Top
wickerw-ttn
IP Logged
LB Bork
NMG Global Moderator
**
Posts: 1897

PAC Groups
PAC Staff
SN Society
Git 'er Done!
Gender: gender.Male
Country of Illinois
 
Similar position of Woods on the 14th
Reply #8 - Mar 27th, 2011 at 6:43pm
Alert Moderator about this Post. 
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:
    Chap. CLIII-Sec. 5. "framed by a convention of delegates elected by the male citizens of said State, twenty-one years old and upward, of whatever race, color, or previous condition, who have been resident in said State for one year previous to the day of such election, except such as may be disfranchised for participation in the rebellion or for felony at common law..."
There is a keyword in the Act that YOU appeared to have overlooked: THE in "the rebellion". The 14th Amendment illustrates "The right to vote is denied EXCEPT FOR participation IN rebellion" So: "THE REBELLION" is PAST TENSE (in relation to the delusional "rebellion" against the United States noted in Sec. 5, see grammatical structure therein), and "The right to vote is denied... EXCEPT FOR participation IN rebellion" relates FUTURE TENSE (as used in the 14th).

Of course they throw in some more garbage to confuse the issue:

    Chap. VI-Sec 1. Oath"...that I have not be disfranchised for participation in any rebellion or civil war against the United States [BORK comment: So what, Historical Error shows that the rebellion[s] is against the lawful states, NOT the United States.], nor for felony committed against the laws of any State [BORK comment: Whatever.], or of the United States; that I have never been a member of any State legislature, nor held any executive or judicial office in any State and afterwards engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States [BORK comment: Again, so what... Historical Error shows that the rebellion[s] is against the lawful States, NOT the United States.], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof; that I have never taken an oath as a member of Congress of the United States, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, and afterwards engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States... [BORK comment: Again, WHATEVER... Historical Error shows that the rebellion[s] is against the lawful States, NOT the United States.]"
In short, that says a lot of nothing... It is just trash language 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 deception is?
    • 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?
I do not know how many times the past ten plus years I have gone over this with people who cannot think. In other words, it is bad to listen to what people say and not think for yourself... But maybe you did come-up with this nonsense that you attempted to push over on me!?!

Maybe you got these nonsensical ideas from guys like Thomas Woods. LOL

In closing...
    1) You owe yourself to look at Historical Error, i.e., You should look at what I had written
    instead of shutting down after the first two paragraphs of a 16 page explanation.

    2) Perhaps you owe me an apology.
To quote you on a maxim: Let those who wish to be deceived, be deceived.
     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:
    • Creation of five military districts in the seceded states not including Tennessee,
       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
President Andrew Johnson's vetoes of these measures were overridden by Congress.

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.
Back to Top
‹‹Last Edit: Apr 27th, 2011 at 3:40pm by LB Bork ››

...


"There is Tranquility in Ignorance, but Servitude is its Partner."  —me
Visit the Website LB Bork
IP Logged
David C
Sophomore
**
Posts: 110

PAC Groups
PAC Staff
Those who seek will find!
Gender: gender.Male
Sioux Falls, South Dakota
 
Re: Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Reply #9 - May 5th, 2011 at 6:12pm
Alert Moderator about this Post. 
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.”
Back to Top
wickerw-ttn
IP Logged
LB Bork
NMG Global Moderator
**
Posts: 1897

PAC Groups
PAC Staff
SN Society
Git 'er Done!
Gender: gender.Male
Country of Illinois
 
Re: Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Reply #10 - Sep 20th, 2011 at 10:31am
Alert Moderator about this Post. 
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?
Back to Top

...


"There is Tranquility in Ignorance, but Servitude is its Partner."  —me
Visit the Website LB Bork
IP Logged
LB Bork
NMG Global Moderator
**
Posts: 1897

PAC Groups
PAC Staff
SN Society
Git 'er Done!
Gender: gender.Male
Country of Illinois
 
Re: Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Reply #11 - Jul 29th, 2012 at 9:24am
Alert Moderator about this Post. 
Yup, It is official. Tom Woods is a NWO shill. Got Jesuits?



Really wish I has more time to expose this guy. Anyone want to help?
Back to Top

...


"There is Tranquility in Ignorance, but Servitude is its Partner."  —me
Visit the Website LB Bork
IP Logged
Jerry
College
*****
Posts: 1014

PAC Groups
PAC Staff
It's Not My Government!
Country of South Carolina
 
Re: Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Reply #12 - Jul 30th, 2012 at 2:54pm
Alert Moderator about this Post. 
So for a man to do something good it must have came from the catholic church :=( Instead of GOD.
Back to Top
IP Logged
Thread
Print this Topic
Not My Government | Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.4.
YaBB © 2000-2011. All Rights Reserved.



Site Born: November 2008
contact
I need to know more about PAC...
I would like to get started with PAC...