KimDotCom Seth Rich Statement – Let’s All Unite for #SethRich

3 thoughts on “KimDotCom Seth Rich Statement – Let’s All Unite for #SethRich”

1. ER……………….. NO………………………

   Reply

2. LOL. That music sounds like some Jr. high schoolers made it.
   Kimdotcom better watch his back. Especially if he comes here.
   Hell, I don’t think he’s even safe in New Zealand.
   Hitlery won’t hesitate to kill him if she thinks she can get away with it.
   And nobody’s stopping her.

   Reply

3. Quit asking the person who serves TEMPORARILY as the US President to “fix” things within our government. The LAWFUL authority that is found within the Office of the President does not cover everything, it is LIMITED, and it is found in writing.

   The real problem is “We the People of the united States” who do not know or understand our US Constitution, when it is written in plain English. IT is our duty to hold those who serve within OUR governments accountable for their actions, for breaking the contract(s) they are under; for working against Americans, and our nation.

   First, regarding these endless wars, that authority belongs to the Congress. They also have constitutional means to stop any person of any rank who serves within from using that power. So WHO should the people be going after? Those that serve within the Congress.

   Another pet peeve of mine is that many people just accept that those who have been SERVING WITHIN the Senate and the House of Representatives have seniority with more or lessor power/authority. That is a LIE. A usurpation. ALL states have EQUAL representation – which means that no matter how long a person serves, they never get more authority and power LAWFULLY. Think about it, if a small group of those who have served the longest can make decisions on who can serve on what committees, who can be heard, etc then that equality is dissolved.

   There is so much more, but people still cannot see past what they have been taught and propagandized with even when they read the words. Such as the Second Amendment, where it says “shall not be infringed”, it means that there is NO PERSON who serves within our governments – state or federal – that has any type of authority over the people and their weapons. NONE! Not to say what ammo, what weapons, how many, what type, etc that the people may have.

   The only authority that they have is when a crime is ACTUALLY committed, weapon or not.

   Report of the Subcommittee On The Constitution of the Committee On The Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, second session (February, 1982), SuDoc# Y4.J 89/2: Ar 5/5: “The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.”

   And even that is incorrect, because it is every type of weapon that might be used in war that the people are constitutionally required to be trained upon, and have access to IF our state or nation is invaded.

   Joel Barlow, “Advice to the Privileged Orders”: “The danger (where there is any) from armed citizens, is only to the *government*, not to *society*; and as long as they have nothing to revenge in the government (which they cannot have while it is in their own hands) there are many advantages in their being accustomed to the use of arms, and no possible disadvantage.”

   Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822): “For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution.”

   Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846): ” `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.”

   Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859): “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.”

   Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878): “To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm … is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.”

   EVERY single time that a law enforcement goes after a person for their weapons, carrying, how they wear it, what type they have it is *TERRORISM on the part of those that serve within our governments, and it is at least one felony, Perjury, etc, etc, etc.

   *28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.

   It has been well established that the original intent of the 2nd amendment was to enable the people to defend against tyranny which invariably comes in the form of an overbearing and oppressive government. This right to defense is not special to Americans and is a natural right of all peoples.
   In the 70s and 80’s the Afghani militia (the mujahideen) was engaged against tyranny (Soviets). In order to aid them in their fight against their oppressors, the USA sent Stinger shoulder mounted rocket launchers so they could wage an asymmetrical battle against the much better equipped Soviet forces.
   Therefore our own federal government established the precedent that, in the age of a modern military, rocket launchers (Bazookas) fall within the scope of weapons necessary for citizen militias fighting against tyranny – inadvertently making the case that they should be covered under the 2nd amendment. http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin800.htm

   Think about it, how often are those who serve within the CIA, etc arming “militias”, rebels, etc of foreign nations while denying the people who the US Constitution REQUIRED them to arm with weapons of war (Article 1, Clause 16), now how does that make any sense? They use the excuse that they are arming them for “good” purposes. BS!

   They lie, they are domestic enemies of our nation, of the American people at the least, and they are quite possibly TRAITORS.

   Reply