[CS-FSLUG] OT: A somber post, from yours truly.

[Fred A. Miller]

Eduardo Sánchez wrote:
> I'm going to nitpick on two points:
> 
> On Sunday 01 March 2009 15.57.52 Fred A. Miller wrote:
> [snip]
>> First, it's WELL known and proven that the first "concentration
>> camp" on US soil was competed around 1999. 
> 
> I'm afraid that's not true. The case of Japanese-Americans confined to 
> camps in WWII comes to mind; there might be others, too.
> 
> [snip]
>> What I'm told is that during Hillary's recent trip to China,
>> she hand delivered a document FROM Obama granting
>> China eminent domain over the USA in trade for their
>> buying our bad dept., I.E. paying for the recent PHONY
>> "stimulus" bill. What this means is that if the US defaults
>> on it's dept, which WILL happen - mark my words this IS
>> part of the plan, China has the right to TAKE ANYTHING
>> in the USA - read that ANY LAND, buildings, people, other
>> property, etc., and declare it's value to be amount they like.
>> They will OWN it AND any people involved. As I said, I
>> can't prove this right how, but getting proof IS in the works.
>> IF it's true, this is THE WORST thing ever to be done by
>> any official in the Fed. Gov't ever!!
> 
> If this is true, and I am speaking now as a law student, this will be 
> very likely the end of the United States. I don't think this would 
> prosper. Even if this agreement is true, and even if the U.S. Executive 
> Branch uses armed forces to enforce its enactment, it would most likely 
> create two consequences:
> 
> 1) Generalized revolt in the land. The treaty (because an agreement 
> between two sovereign powers is a treaty) would run against the will of 
> the people, which is the base of the U.S. Federal State; thus, it would 
> be unbearably tyrannical and people would feel compelled to rebel 
> against it. And there is a fundamental right to rebel against a 
> tyrannical governments or laws, and it is recognized on most democratic 
> constitutions of the world.

That IS corrrect, and why do you think they are working on disarming us
ASAP?!

> 2) It would be very likely struck down. Either by a suit on the Court of 
> Justice at The Hague, or because of pressure by other parties. Whatever 
> their loyalties and interests might be, other countries would see that 
> if this treaty is enacted it would create a far more dangerous and far 
> more reaching precedent than they would be comfortable with. Therefore 
> the international community would not allow such a thing.

I didn't say it was true, but that it did come from has been a reliable
source in the past. The "leak" came from the US Embassy in Beijing, or
so reported. I'm waiting to see some proof of it. The problem with all
this, is that it IS plausible because there's already WILLFUL violations
of the Constitution! Here's two examples. It does appear that Obama
WASN'T born in the US, thus NOT eligible to even be a Senator let alone
President. He REFUSES to provide a copy of his birth certificate. His
grandmother in Kenya says she was THERE for his birth and other
relatives there have said they did see and hold him right after his
birth...IN Kenya. 2nd, both the House and Senate are going to vote
SOON to include D.C., allowing representation in the House and Senate.
ONLY states, NOT territories are valid, and they KNOW it. But, it
would give them more liberal votes.

It also makes sense, because the Chinese will use ANYTHING to put
the "bite" on the US. The bottom line is that what has been claimed IS
VERY possible, but will be kept VERY, VERY quiet for obvious reasons.

Fred

-- 
The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other
people's money.
  -  Margaret Thatcher