Back Door To War

[palani]

BACK DOOR TO WAR .... Eric WhoRU


Hi members, this article is a history lesson amd a warning, that I strongly urge you to read copy down, print out and pass out.

Here during the early morning hours of November 24, 2010, I have been listening, just in snatches, to the Jerry Doyle talk show, wherein they are talking about the war developing between North Korea and South Korea. They are speculating that Communist China will not allow North Korea to proceed with their war making activity against the South Korea because of China's reliance on resources China receives from North Korea. I contend, the Jerry Doyle and his guests at their heads squarely up their asses.

Let's get something straight, there is zero possibility that North Korea would have engaged in any of the war making activity that it is engaging in against South Korea without the full prior approval of Communist China. I will even go a step farther and state that Communist China instigated these North Korean attacks on South Korea.

During last month, we had received many reports about a disabled cruise ship located in the Pacific Ocean that supposedly had an engine room fire that totally disabled the ship. It is my understanding that this ship was distressed, floundering in the Pacific Ocean for three days before it was discovered adrift.

That is, it is my understanding that this ship did not have any ability to send or receive radio distress messages. I am engineer. I do know a little bit about ships. There is absolutely no possibility that an engine room fire on that ship could have disabled the backup electrical systems and emergency communications equipment.

During the same time we also were advised of some kind of rocket or missile that was launched off of the Pacific Coast. I contend that this rocket or missile was an EMF device launched by a submarine from Communist China. That the purpose of this EMF missile was to test the response of the United States military. This EMF missile, I contend was aimed at this cruise ship. That it was intended to disable that cruise ship in the South Pacific. I further contend that this EMF missile, fried every electrical system on that cruise ship, which was its intended purpose.

And now we have a war breaking out between North and South Korea with the president of the United States reiterating the guarantee of the United States to protect South Korea from North Korea.

During the last few days, we have been inundated with reports and complaints about the pat down and body searches of airline passengers.

During the last few days. I have been listening to the talk show host on this purported conservative radio station Mountain talk 97 coming out of Mountain Home Arkansas, where the talk show hosts have been stating that we are beginning to lose our freedom here in the United States. Where have these talk show host Ben for the past 30 or 40 or 50 years. Are they totally brain-dead, or are they so young that they have no personal recollection of the freedoms that existed in this country in the 1940s, during World War II. I, on the other hand, am 76 years old. I entered my teen years during World War II. I remember very, very well the freedoms that we enjoyed back then. And I have watched with a crying heart as these freedoms have been deteriorating for the last 50 or 60 years . And these brain-dead talk show hosts are claiming that we are just beginning to lose our freedoms.

Now I am going to go back to the beginning of this country in 1776. The foundation for the design of the government for this country was established long before July 4, 1776. It is critically important to understand that in the 18th century every single country on the planet was rolled by some kind of a monarch be it a King, Emperor or Tsar.

The displeasure of the subjects of King George in the British colonies was not the first time that the subjects of the King of England had been dissatisfied with their King and wanted to kick him out. It was the expectation of the vast majority of the colonists that King George would be replaced by their own King, most probably George Washington.

The vast majority of the colonists had no expectation or desire to have any other form of government than a King.

It was Thomas Paine, who stirred the common people up and convince them with his writing, that's they did not need a King. Nor, Thomas Paine taught, did they need aristocrats to create and run their government, that the common people could govern themselves.

Thomas Paine was able to convince a sufficient number of the common people, all of them being subjects of King George, that they could create and operate their own government, but the problem was they had no experience; this had never ever been done before, and all of the commoners had been indoctrinated for many generations to believe that they were incapable of participating in any meaningful way with the government. They had been indoctrinated for many generations to believe that only those of the aristocrat class had the ability to manage the government.

The point here is that the commoners of the late 18th century didn't have a clue as to how a government should be designed that would be controlled by the common people. As a result of this lack of knowledge the participation of the commoners in the creation of the government resulted in the highly defective Articles of Confederation, which those of the aristocrat class knew would never work, but it was nevertheless implemented and lasted for about 11 years, during which time the political situation in the new country was a total disaster.

Now, understand that at that time in the history of we human there was no refrigeration of food, that is, most of the people present in the 13 colonies were farmers. This was required in order for them to survive. There was no importing of food from Mexico or any country in South America, or any other country, all of the food needed by those living in the 13 colonies had to be grown by those living in the colonies.

During the immediate pursual of the Civil War it was necessary for a significant percentage of these farmers to become soldiers in order to drive out King George's redcoats. And after the shooting part of the war was over, before the new government was created and things settle down, these soldier farmers were president during the creation of the new government, and they participated in it, which resulted in the disastrous articles of Confederation.

During the 11 years that the articles of Confederation were in force the former farmers had , of necessity, gone back to their farm and yielded the operation of the government to the former aristocrats. Rest assured, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, nor any of the other "former" aristocrats got their hands dirty tilling soil, or got their boots dirty, following a plow pulled by an animal. This was work that was fit only for commoners.

Now there is another point that needs to be understood here, and I hate to burst the bubble of those who idolize the founding fathers, however it is a violation of human nature to expect that men, long accustomed, for many generations, of being in charge of the government, are going to be all that eager to relinquish that high status and consider themselves to be politically equal to scrub women and stablemen.

George Washington is considered to be the father of our country. If the truth be known the true father of our country is Thomas Paine. Not George Washington, and neither did Thomas Jefferson write the Declaration of Independence, that great document was written by Thomas Paine. I suggest those of you who think otherwise, go do your homework.

That Constitution, that everyone seems to love so much is the cause of the mess we are in. There are several very very serious defect in that document and one very very serious omission.

I don't know which is worse. The inclusion in the Constitution of the authority authorizing the Congress, to borrow Money on the credit of the United States or the failure of the founding fathers to include in the Constitution a definition and explanation of what it is that constitutes a trial by jury. I don't know which of those is the worst or has done the most damage.

[palani]

How many of you who are reading this are aware of Congressman Davy Crockett from Tennessee. Congressman Crockett served for six years in the House of Representatives during which time he almost lost his bid for reelection, because he had voted in his first term in Congress to give taxpayer money to the victims of a terrible fire, who had lost everything in this fire.

Some other congressmen introduced the bill into Congress to bail out those victims of that fire, and Congressman Crockett voted for that unconstitutional expenditure.

When he went back to Tennessee to stump for reelection he was called on the carpet for his unconstitutional vote, and in order for him to be reelected he had to publicly apologize to his constituents and assure them that he had learned his lesson and that he would never ever again vote to use taxpayers money to rescue anyone.

How can it be under President Barack Hussein Obama, that the government of the United States has become the number one financial bailout of so many different entities, and even foreign countries, that it is impossible to keep track of them all, and I hear none of the "conservative" talk show hosts ever complaining about this or pointing out that it is totally unconstitutional. Well, in fairness, I did hear one talk show host actually mention the Davy Crockett story, but only one. And I have not heard that talk show host talk anymore about it. I guess he was properly chastised thereafter.

I contend that the framers of the Constitution intentionally wrote it so that it could be used to destroy the concept of government of by and for the people. I do not contend, however, that they did so because of any malicious intent but because they too had been indoctrinated for many generations to believe that only aristocrats were in intellectually qualified to run the government and that in order for the society here to be properly governed the concept of government by the common people had to be destroyed bygradually eroding it away.

I contend that this is why the men who wrote the Constitution did not include any of the protections that were later added in the first 10 amendments. But as I have previously written and stated when the Constitution was presented to the commoners at that time. The commoners rejected it and demanded a Bill of Rights. This demand approves the commoners did not fully understand self-government, and they certainly did not understand what it is that constitutes the fundamental basic natural principles. And unfortunately it seems that neither does anybody in 2010 understand this basic concept of freedom, being that government cannot possibly be imbued with any more authority than the authority naturally imbued into one single individual, by nature.

My favorite example of that is the question, "How many men, would it take to properly and democratically vote, the panties off of an unwilling woman."

The foregoing question proves absolutely and irrefutably that voting is a crime no matter what the issue might be that as voted upon.

The commoners created and presented to the founding fathers about 50 proposed amendments to the Constitution. Due to the fact that there was no electronic communication at that time. All of the 13 new states came up with their own suggestions for the amendments, therefore, there were many duplications. The 50 original proposals can be read on the Internet, and I suggest that all of you go read them, here is the link. Click on it. I dare you:

http://www.constitution.org/dhbr.htm

As you read through the 50 proposed amendments I encourage you to take note of what I call the flavor, take note that the writing of these proposals written by commoners, that there is clearly no intention on their part, that the application of these protections should be limited to any particular political class.

Then go read the 10 amendments created from these 50 proposals by the "former" aristocrats, and count how many times you find the word citizen in those 10 amendments. Then count how many times you find the word people. Then go read the preamble to the Constitution, and count how many times you find the word citizen in the preamble. Please understand that the purpose of the preamble to the Constitution is to explain the purpose of the Constitution. So what I was the explanation, the aristocrats wrote into the preamble? I will distill it down to its essence for you,

"We the people of the United States in order to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Please note that the wording of the preamble is both limiting and exclusionary. The protection there is limited to the people of the United States and excludes anyone else, including citizens that is, citizens are excluded from the protection of the Constitution. As stated in the preamble, written by the "former" aristocrats.

Please note that in the preamble, you do not find the word citizen, even one-time.

Now back to the issue of the form of government, designed by the founding fathers and the form of government in all the other countries on the planet at the time the government of this country was created. As I stated herein above, all of the countries on the planet in the latter part of the 18th century were some kind of monarchy, where there was one individual man who was in charge, known as a King, Emperor or Tsar. Those who were in charge in these monarchies have not taken kindly to the influence that the government of the United States has had on virtually all of the countries on the planet. To put it mildly, they are very unhappy with the form of government in the United States, as were the founding fathers of the government of the United States at the time they created. The founding fathers only created a government that they did, because of the influence of Thomas Paine.

Forces have been at work behind the scenes since the very beginning of this country to destroy any semblance of government by the common people and to punish the common people of the United States for having caused the aristocrats worldwide to lose their overt positions of power.

Additionally, at the same time, it has been the intention of communist China to take over the ownership and control of the entire North American continent, including Mexico and the United States and Canada. This is a private agenda of communist China, quite separate and apart from the displeasure of all of the former aristocrats, who are also doing everything they can to destroy the government we have here.

It is not by any accident or stupidity that the government of communist China has become the biggest holder of notes of the government of the United States. There is no possibility that those in control of communist China are not aware of the fact that all of those notes are quite literally worthless and can never ever be made good. They've known it from the very beginning, when they made their first loan to the United States. The intent of the government of China from the outset has been to economically destroying the United States; have they succeeded, take a look around, judge for yourself.

Another major subject of conversation on these so-called "conservative" talk shows is a sad state of the economy of the United States, which has caused such massive unemployment. There is much conversation and demand that the government do something to create jobs for all of these millions of people who are out of work.

What, are all of these talk shows and commentators totally brain-dead? There is no possibility that the government of the United States or the government of any of the states can create an environment in this country that will cause employment to happen. The vast majority of the production has been moved to China and India, South Korea and Japan. The only way that the unemployed in the United States can be put back to work is for all of these jobs to come back to the United States. The reason why those jobs moved to these foreign countries is because the government of the United States drove them out intentionally. Does it take a rocket scientist to understand this?

And then there is all of the talk about the foreclosures about the thousands or millions of people who are losing their homes, and how it's all the fault of the banks or of the Federal Reserve and that these foreclosures are illegal, because the foreclosing entities cannot produce the wet ink contracts to prove that they legally hold title to the property they are foreclosing on.

It may very well be true that the foreclosing entities cannot legally establish that they are properly positioned to foreclose. However, that does not change the fact that the foreclose are on borrower who have not paid for the house. So who is more guilty here, the lender or the borrower?

Then we hear that when the loan was originally extended, that the lending bank did not lend any of its own money, but that the lending bank, merely created the money to fund the loan by writing a check, creating money that never existed before. There is no doubt that this is true.

There is also no doubt that the lending bank did not make an investment in the loan process. But somebody fronted up all of these millions of loans, if it was not the lending bank then who was it?

When the lending bank wrote the check, the check was then given to the builder of the house. The builder of the house then took the money from that check and used it to pay everyone who had helped to build a house, including all those who had provided the materials from which the house was built. All of those who received their portion of this money from the builder then spent their portion to pay for their day-to-day expenses or in the case of the material suppliers to pay their suppliers, or to pay the lumber men in the forest, who cut down the trees.

The point here is that it was the people of the community that actually funded all of these millions of loans, and it is the people of the community that are getting screwed when these foreclosed on borrower's are no longer being required to make their payments or to move out of the house upon their default. The default thing borrowers are in fact stealing their houses and they are stealing them from their neighbors in the community.

At the same time here is important to understand that when the banks have all of these bad loans on their books wherein we are told that this is the cause of their failure, that this is nothing but smoke and mirrors, because it is impossible for these banks to be taking any loss, because they never had any advancement in the first place, it is all smoke and mirrors and gigantic cover-up. And I'm sorry to say. I cannot help but believe that Congressman Ron Paul of Texas does not fully understand all of this.

Part of the procedure here in this mortgage issue is that millions of these mortgages have been sold to investors and the investors are the ones who are doing the foreclosing who are unable to come up with the wet pink contract to prove their investment and ownership. Now it is important to understand here that these investors do actually have an investment, they paid the original lending bank for the mortgages. It is true that they purchased these mortgages at a discounted price, of course, but there can be no denial that they do have a legitimate claim, but not in regard to the house. But in regard to the original lending bank, who defrauded them when the original lending bank sold them the mortgage when the original lending bank had no legitimate claim of ownership on because the original lending bank had no proper claim of ownership, because the original lending bank had not lent any of its own money during the original loan process.

Why is it that it seems as though I am the only one who understands this?

It is the people of the communities of this country that have affronted up every single loan extended in this country by any bank, where the bank created the money that was "lent ", no matter if the loan was a mortgage loan, a business allowed or a credit card. (This does not include credit unions that loan their members money).

To the contrary of the belief of those in the patriot community the paper Federal Reserve notes that were created in all of these loans are not worthless fiat money. Fiat money is money that is put into circulation by the government without anything back it up. Although the money that is created by the Federal Reserve to fund loans made to private-sector borrowers is created under government authority , it is not created by the government or put in circulation by the government. This paper money is backed by the productivity of the private-sector borrowers, it is not in any way fair or proper to characterize this money as fiat money.

Understand something readers, the reason why our country is in such a mess is because the common people have been too lazy to do their own thinking. There is no doubt that thinking is the hardest form of work there is, and it is the nature of humans to avoid work as often as possible.

I have titled this article, "BACK DOOR TO WAR". Everything that I have set forth here is part of the intention to manipulate this country into a position or a condition where it does not have the ability and cannot survive a war.

When the Japanese were fraudulently induced to attack Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 by the manipulations of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the industrial complex in the United States was in full operation. Even though we were still coming out of the depression. With the impetus of the Japanese attack we were able to build a war machine to not only defeat the Japanese but also in all military theaters in Europe.

I copied the name of this article from the title of the book written by Charles Tancil in which he exposed how President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston Churchill manipulated the people of the United States into World War II and what President Roosevelt did to provoke the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

The same thing is happening now in 2010, China, Communist China is using North Korea to provoke the United States into a war with North Korea, which China will totally fund. Just like it did in the Korean War, of some 50 years ago, only this time. We don't have the military industrial complex to fight an all-out war, and China has demonstrated its ability to disable all of our ships and airplanes, as it did that cruise ship last month.

Oh, before I forgot it, the critically important issue that the founding fathers did not include in the Constitution was an explanation and/or definition of what it is that constitutes a trial by jury. The most important part of this explanation would've been that the first duty of a jury is to judge the law before they ever consider the facts. If this were followed. There would be no drug convictions in the United States, because the government of the United States has absolutely no authority to regulate anyone's use of any kind of drugs, recreational or otherwise. Additionally, and perhaps even more important than the previous point is that it in a criminal trial it does not take does not take a 12 to 0 verdict to acquit a defendant, all it takes is one juror to effect an acquittal. Under the common law, under which the right to a trial by jury was created and established, it t took two eyewitnesses to a murder before an indictment could even be issued. Under the common law there is no such thing as circumstantial evidence or a verdict mandated by the judge.

At the founding of this country. It was held that it was better for 100 guilty to go free than for one innocent to be wrongly convicted. The current practice is that it's better that a 1000 innocent people are sent to prison than for 1 guilty to be wrongly convicted.

Additionally, the decision of each of the jurors in a trial by jury in secret and not subject to review by anyone, including the other members of the jury. During deliberations, all of the votes of the jurors in the jury deliberation room are supposed to be by a written secret ballot, so that in the event that there is a holdout of one or two jurors for either conviction or acquittal, the holdout juror(s) will not be subjected to pier pressure or in some cases, that the juror's life would be in danger. There is no authority under the common law for a judge to ever poll a jury to see how they voted. It is supposed to be SECRET!

There is no requirements under the, law, that any of the jurors during deliberation must argue their point or explain or justify the reason for their vote, no matter if the vote would be for conviction or acquittal, it is simply none of the other jurors business. Now this does not mean that a juror is prohibited from arguing his points or her point, but there is no requirement that such be done.

And, of very significant importance is that in the event of a hung jury there is no authority under the common law for another trial to be held. Such a second trial is a denial of due process of law. It destroys the whole purpose of the trial by jury, and this, in my not so humble opinion, is a reason why the founding fathers did not include any explanation as to what it was that constitutes a trial by jury in the Constitution. The trial by jury was fought for by the common people of England and not by the aristocrats, who made the laws. The purpose of the trial by jury was so that the common people would have some control over the legislation imposed upon them by the aristocrats. We have no such protection here in the United States in 2010. It has been totally destroyed. A jury trial in this country is a total joke, but not funny at all!

All of this should have been included in the original draft in the original body of the Constitution. But there's one thing that the aristocrats did not want trial by jury. They wanted it destroyed, and it has been, as they say, the proof is in the pudding.

Authored by Eric WhoRU, of Yellville Arkansas, unlimited copying is authorized and encouraged as long as due credit is accorded to me.

[palani]

Above sent to me by email. I thought Eric made some interesting points and he encouraged the distribution of it. The idea that the disabled cruise ship might be related to the missile sighted off the west cost is interesting though I know of nothing short of a nuke that could disable an engine room and all the electronics on a ship.

[chad]

other than that the cruise fire happened in the morning on november 8, and the missile launch didn't happen until 5pm, brilliant theory.

it took me 3 minutes to google the time(s). shitty doom and gloom reporting, i mean come on, you can't chart time?

unless the starship enterprise and a warp drive space time continum was involved, i call retarded.

[mrnhtbr2232]

other than that the cruise fire happened in the morning on november 8, and the missile launch didn't happen until 5pm, brilliant theory.

it took me 3 minutes to google the time(s). sh*tty doom and gloom reporting, i mean come on, you can't chart time?

unless the starship enterprise and a warp drive space time continum was involved, i call retarded.


Not to mention the vessel was maintaining <b>radio contact</b> with the Coast Guard. "I am engineer" might want to retreat on the evidence. This was too easy to discredit.

[palani]

i mean come on, you can't chart time?

unless the starship enterprise and a warp drive space time continum was involved, i call retarded.


You are taking things you discover on the internet to be EVIDENCE? Who knows precisely what time these things occur unless you are there to see them with your own eyes. You have formed an opinion and you have no evidence one way or the other. Do you believe your actions are irreproachable?

[palani]

Not to mention the vessel was maintaining <b>radio contact</b> with the Coast Guard. "I am engineer" might want to retreat on the evidence. This was too easy to discredit.
If SPAM can be dropped to a cruise ship do you suppose portable radios can as well?

I am not defending the content of the article but he raises some interesting speculation. SPECULATION is ALL that it is.

[chad]

i can find about 50 articles that say the fire happened in the early hours of november 8th.

i can find about 200+ articles that say the missile launch happened/was filmed at 5pm on november 8th.

of the 50 or so articles i can find referencing the early morning fire, 50% of them reference the fact that the ship was in contact with authorities using RADIO to send distress calls.

i can find about another 30+ articles from once the ship was towed back referencing the fact that the ship was using RADIO to communicate with the authorities to coordinate rescue effort the whole time it was at sea.

i can find about 20 articles wherein people on the ship were calling relatives on CELL PHONES during the ordeal.

apparently all of these stories are fiction.

:oo-->

[palani]

apparently all of these stories are fiction.


If you didn't see it yourself it is fiction.

The analogy is similar to holding PMs. If you have a paper saying you own PMs then you may or may not.

[chad]

i can't take this thread seriously any longer.

i just noticed that this was written by eric who ru.

this is the same genius who thinks we should have a constitutional amendment eliminating the fed, but then in the same bill put all of the fed governors on to the board of directors of the the newly created "people's central bank." and then this "central bank" is to be regulated by, you know, "several sates." 50? 47 13? 2? no, just "several."

what a retard.

ERIC WHO RU OWNED 169%
\
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/McHammer.gif

[General of Darkness]

Great read.

[palani]

and then this "central bank" is to be regulated by, you know, "several sates." 50? 47 13? 2? no, just "several."

You do know that "the several States" constituted the United States? That is how specific law gets. Several States are plural. The United States is singular. That is how you know you are discussing different entities.

Sorry, Chad. I don't place you in the rocket scientist category. A career placement person might suggest a career in trash hauling for you. But I will be kind and suggest that maybe you just indulged in too much turkey... :-)

[chad]

sorry fool, in the year 2010, writing "several states" in a constitutional amendment that outlines the function of taxation of the country gets you years of lawyers and think tank groups filing lawsuits to challenge the language of the law, no matter it's original intent. google living document, how the court now defines it. it ain't 1776 anymore, no matter how much you i wish it were.

at least i can tell time + run calendars on the garbage truck route. that way, i'll take your bullsh*t away on the right day, at the right time.

OH SNAP, OWNED AGAIN.
\
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/McHammer.gif

[General of Darkness]

sorry fool, in the year 2010, writing "several states" in a constitutional amendment that outlines the function of taxation of the country gets you years of lawyers and think tank groups filing lawsuits to challenge the language of the law, no matter it's original intent. it's now a living document, yo. ask ginsburg if you don't believe me.

are you at least i can tell time + run calendars.

OH SNAP, OWNED AGAIN.
\
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/McHammer.gif


Come on Chad, you're being kinda mean. Just stab him in the dick and let it go. :ROFL:

[chad]

sorry fool, in the year 2010, writing "several states" in a constitutional amendment that outlines the function of taxation of the country gets you years of lawyers and think tank groups filing lawsuits to challenge the language of the law, no matter it's original intent. it's now a living document, yo. ask ginsburg if you don't believe me.

are you at least i can tell time + run calendars.

OH SNAP, OWNED AGAIN.
\
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/McHammer.gif


Come on Chad, you're being kinda mean. Just stab him in the dick and let it go. :ROFL:


SORRY G-MAN, I JUST GOTTA PLAY DA FOOLS WHEN I SEE THEM FRONTIN'
\
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/McHammer.gif

[palani]

sorry fool, in the year 2010, writing "several states" in a constitutional amendment that outlines the function of taxation of the country gets you years of lawyers and think tank groups filing lawsuits to challenge the language of the law, no matter it's original intent.

That "original intent" is what many politicians and quasi-public officials all take an oath to protect and defend.

While I understand the language and believe I understand the intent of the wording of the constitution I also believe that the several States are now dead and have been since silver was removed from circulation. As a matter of fact I believe the original intent of the U.S. constitution was to novate federal debt to the several states. Now that the federal debt is unpayable then it no longer exists and the ball game is now going into extra innings. If you thought the events surrounding 911 were extraordinary write me in a couple of years to let me know what events will have transpired between now and then.