From: someone@anywheret.net   
      
   "JimD"  wrote in message news:2017062714204549573-email@nowherecom...   
      
   > Sure, I'l love to hear it. You know my email. Just keep the file size   
   > under 10 meg or so ... or my ISP will block it.   
      
   No problem. It'll be an mp3 around 4MB in size.   
      
   I just sent it, it's something like 3.66MB...hope you like it ;)   
      
   > yep, sometimes there isn't any peaceful way to coexist with folks who   
   > want you dead.   
      
   The Founders tried every peaceful way they could think of, but it's always   
   the Tyrants that demand Blood!   
      
   > turn CNN off, and find a better news source.   
      
   I don't bother with ANY of those Ministry of Propaganda Controlled Media   
   Sources at all!   
      
   > not good if the goal is to break society down from civil to anarchy,   
   > all so some super rich can be even moreso.   
      
   The Enemy's Plan is ORDO AB CHAO - order out of chaos, *THEIR* so-called   
   'order'...but we don't have to let them get away with it.   
   It's merely yet another one of their classic Hegelian Dialectic   
   Manipulations, where *they* produce the  chaos (Thesis) and then proceed to   
   *fix* (Antithesis) read install greater Tyranny, in its place, the Intended   
   Synthesis all along - SOP for them.   
      
   > I don't recall the endings of either of those tomes to have been   
   > sepecially positive.   
      
   They're not positive, because the Clear message is DON'T EVER LET THIS   
   HAPPEN!!!   
      
   > In BNW, didn't the offer to send a few off to some   
   > island where they could live free ?  But the basic message was, big   
   > brother will crush you, so get use to it.   
      
   Brave New World had "World Controllers", and the rebel, known as "the   
   savage", was born on an island, of a real mother rather than in an   
   artificial hatchery, i.e. a test tube.   
      
   > I was pleasently surprised they could stay awake long enough to agree   
   > that enforcing our immigrations laws was well within the governments   
   > power. In fact, that is EXACTLY where the power is. To see what can   
   > happen if you decide to enforce immigration laws and you're not the   
   > feds, look up the trial that's happening right now over that sheriff in   
   > Arizona who dispbeyed a court order to let illegals loose if his dept   
   > happened to pick one up.  We live in a crazy time when a sheriff   
   > enforcing the law is against the law.   
      
   Our Constitution provides Congress the power to legislate a uniform Rule of   
   Naturalization of aliens, which clearly implies that they can't just come in   
   and do what they like.   
      
   > UnConstitutional, as in, outside the powers granted to the federal gov,   
   > and specifically reserved for the people and the states.  Creeping   
   > federalism.  The way the power crazy feds found around that was   
   > judicial activism.   
      
   Tyranny always creeps, just like the CREEPS trying relentlessly to Sneak it   
   through at every turn!   
      
   > Easy fix, penalize judges who rule against the plaing language of the law.   
      
   "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and   
   void."   
   --- Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)   
      
   "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there   
   can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate   
   them."   
                      --- Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.   
      
   "An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it   
   imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no   
   office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as   
   though it had never been passed."   
                  --- Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425 p. 442   
      
   The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though   
   having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is   
   wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since   
   unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and   
   not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.   
   "No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts   
   are bound to enforce it."   
                       --- 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256   
      
   > Hey, you should look up sometime the sort of things that historically   
   > have been done to reel in corrupt judges.  Interesting reading.   
      
   What I posted above is a good start ;)   
      
   > I'm an old guy.  Not nearly afraid of dying for a just cause as some   
   > might think.   
      
   Jim   
      
   I'd rather the bad guys die for their cause!!! ;)   
      
   Ouisie   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)