A Memo to President Obama

[EndGame]

Ok you proved it to me. I guess Beemer is back.

I started this account today because I was told this was a great site for info.

Is this your character? That is calling someone names?

Have I been disrespectful to you? No.

So who the heck is Beemer and why do you think I am him or her?

First, you start out calling me DUDE without even knowing me which I find tacky.

Second, you attack facts with personal opinions.

Lastly, try a chill pill guy. I know the truth is a hard pill to swallow but how about trying to back up your claims with hardcore facts. I cannot make a statement without you claiming your rhetoric as facts as an opposing view.

Nothing wrong with opposition but there is something wrong with being wrong.

To oppose with fact or not oppose with opinion that is the question.

 

[letzrockexpress]

EndGame, huh? Which end? What kind of game? You might be taken a little more seriously here and a little less suspiciously if you were to fill out your user profile. For just being introduced to this site you certainly seem to know whose feathers to ruffle....

 

[RLENT]

OK.. I give, for who?

Not for me to answer for you - that wasn't the point of the question. The point of the question was to inspire thought and/or contemplation, and perhaps a search for a real answer - rather than blind acceptance of whatever PR line was used at the time, or what the apologists who write history have come up with in the meantime. Answer it for yourself.

I don't read the conspiracy theory stuff, or the annotated history of the 16th amendment (you know where the the signature was not on the line just right, nullifying the amendment).

I'm afraid I'm not quite as selective - one cannot evaluate anything as to it's validity or truth without being aware of, or conversant with it - and that is often accomplished, at least in part, by reading.

And I'm not so quick to write something off as a "conspiracy theory" or "crackpot" - just because the other lemmings who would have me travel over the cliff with them (thereby committing suicide) would label something as such.

Do you know actually how dumb that sounds?

Well actually, I don't think it sounds dumb at all ..... and I suspect that right about now, after the bailout of large financial institutions - where the people at the top have profited in the millions or billions of dollars - with prospects of more bailouts on the horizon (all accomplished with your and my money BTW), it probably doesn't sound all that dumb to a great many people.

And that suspicion, is based on repeatedly talking to the "average joe" - the guy in the street, on the shop floor, over the last few months. The folks out in the general populace, by and large, don't seem to be real big fans of that crowd right at the moment.

Do you know what treason is?

I know very intimately what treason is - on a very personal level. It is a condition which most folks experience at one time or another - either as the one committing it, or as the one effected by it. I have experienced it from both perspectives.

At it's most basic, it could be simply defined as: "a betrayal, after trust"

Marital infidelity is a form of treason. So is embezzlement, as but two of many possible examples - there are many, many others.

If you are trying to talk about what it is, or are posing the question in terms of a legal crime (as opposed to a moral one) within these United States, well then .... that is different (but only slightly) - however the fundamental definition of it remains the same regardless. The definition of it legally within the United States is:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

It is the only crime defined specifically within the United States Constitution.

BTW, I read the words "United States" above as plural (meaning the individual states), not as singular (meaning the single Federal entity) - it is easy to see that this was the intent, simply by noticing the use of the word "them" within the sentence.

War is generally thought of as armed conflict between two nations - however I think that definition is too narrow - there are many other types of war. It is indeed possible to wage an economic war without ever firing a shot - just ask Iran. The Cold War was, largely, an economic war.

I can't imagine any greater enemy of the States, than those who would enslave their citizens, economically or otherwise.

 

[EndGame]

Not for me to answer for you - that wasn't the point of the question. The point of the question was to inspire thought and/or contemplation, and perhaps a search for a real answer - rather than blind acceptance of whatever PR line was used at the time, or what the apologists who write history have come up with in the meantime. Answer it for yourself.


I'm afraid I'm not quite as selective - one cannot evaluate anything as to it's validity or truth without being aware of, or conversant with it - and that is often accomplished, at least in part, by reading.

And I'm not so quick to write something off as a "conspiracy theory" or "crackpot" - just because the other lemmings who would have me travel over the cliff with them (thereby committing suicide) would label something as such.


Well actually, I don't think it sounds dumb at all ..... and I suspect that right about now, after the bailout of large financial institutions - where the people at the top have profited in the millions or billions of dollars - with prospects of more bailouts on the horizon (all accomplished with your and my money BTW), it probably doesn't sound all that dumb to a great many people.

And that suspicion, is based on repeatedly talking to the "average joe" - the guy in the street, on the shop floor, over the last few months. The folks out in the general populace, by and large, don't seem to be real big fans of that crowd right at the moment.


I know very intimately what treason is - on a very personal level. It is a condition which most folks experience at one time or another - either as the one committing it, or as the one effected by it. I have experienced it from both perspectives.

At it's most basic, it could be simply defined as: "a betrayal, after trust"

Marital infidelity is a form of treason. So is embezzlement, as but two of many possible examples - there are many, many others.

If you are trying to talk about what it is, or are posing the question in terms of a legal crime (as opposed to a moral one) within these United States, well then .... that is different (but only slightly) - however the fundamental definition of it remains the same regardless. The definition of it legally within the United States is:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

It is the only crime defined specifically within the United States Constitution.

BTW, I read the words "United States" above as plural (meaning the individual states), not as singular (meaning the single Federal entity) - it is easy to see that this was the intent, simply by noticing the use of the word "them" within the sentence.

War is generally thought of as armed conflict between two nations - however I think that definition is too narrow - there are many other types of war. It is indeed possible to wage an economic war without ever firing a shot - just ask Iran. The Cold War was, largely, an economic war.

I can't imagine any greater enemy of the States, than those who would enslave their citizens, economically or otherwise.

Nailed it! Thanks for such great insight.

 

[letzrockexpress]

RLENT = EndGame? Hmm... I wonder.

 

[EndGame]

EndGame, huh? Which end? What kind of game? You might be taken a little more seriously here and a little less suspiciously if you were to fill out your user profile. For just being introduced to this site you certainly seem to know whose feathers to ruffle....

Whose feathers am I ruffling? I don't think my post are directed at anyone in particular. So your statement is quite confusing. I think when a "certain someone" replies to my post by saying stuff like "you know how DUMB that sounds" without knowing the definition of HIGH TREASON is a direct attack on the POSTER. So who is ruffling who here?

Anyway, excuse me for not being familiar with this site and not completing my profile. I feel what is being said is more imp't. Do you need me to explain why I chose EndGame for my handle? I mean, I can but I think you are being petty. Who cares if I choose EndGame? By the way, it is a pretty good book. Maybe that is why I chose it????

Why the suspicion? I don't get that one, but maybe you can go on an explain yourself. Are you telling me that you are a bit paranoid on who I am because I did not fill out my profile completely? I mean, it was not a requirement so I chose to not do it. No need to be suspicious of me.

 

[EndGame]

RLENT = EndGame? Hmm... I wonder.

Letzrockexpress or LetzNOTrockexpress? I wonder. What is your point? You are a bit paranoid if you are assuming me and RLENT are in cahoots or the same people. Check out the MAC address on my computer if you know how to hack my friend. You have my permission. Just you...

LMAO

 

[letzrockexpress]

Yep, that's right..I'm paranoid. You're on to me. I appreciate your offer to hack into your system but I'm kinda busy right now trying to jam the signal coming from the chip installed in my head by the shadow people.

 

[RLENT]

RLENT = EndGame? Hmm... I wonder.

Letzrock .... nah, not even ..... although that's a game some on here play apparently, it just doesn't interest me - honestly, I actually find it rather irritating.

If I got something to say, I'll say it as me (rlent) and let the chips fall where they may .... if I don't feel comfortable about that, I'll just keep my mouth shut (hard to imagine I know) .... besides .... one of me is quite enough (... some might say too much ... )

 

[RLENT]

Yep, that's right..I'm paranoid. You're on to me. I appreciate your offer to hack into your system but I'm kinda busy right now trying to jam the signal coming from the chip installed in my head by the shadow people.

Shyeeaaah ..... well .... what didja expect ? ...... hangin' out with da Ghoul and all .... sick twisted puppy that he is .....

(BTW, did I mention that I think Letzrockexpress = greg334 .... in disguise of course)

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Rlent and Letzrock have Slowhio in common....

 

[EndGame]

Yep, that's right..I'm paranoid. You're on to me. I appreciate your offer to hack into your system but I'm kinda busy right now trying to jam the signal coming from the chip installed in my head by the shadow people.

I knew it! Ha, ha, ha... As far as the shadow people go I really think you should think about seeking some psychological help and maybe remove the chip yourself. I have a nice little tool called a knife that you could use. LOL. Just make sure you dig it out nice and slow. Ouch!

By the way, I took your comparing me with RLENT as a compliment.

Thanks for not comparing me to a turd. LMAO

 

[greg334]

"Try these international bankers with HIGH TREASON. They are nothing but parasites and we should send them packing!"

Yes after reading it again, it is a dumb statement and I do think we have beemer "the cut and paste" guy back.

Treason can not be applied to international anything, sorry.

The fact is a person has to either be a citizen of a country or hold an oath of allegiance to the country or sovereign in order for treason to be the case. For this statement to be any close to sensible, the international bankers have to be US bankers and allied with an enemy, like Al Qaida but again we are not talking about US bankers are we?

The term is broadly defined in English law (you did study engish history?) and I think that our founding fathers wanted to eliminate the use of Treason for petty issues, like speaking ill of the monarchy.

Trust is a different issue, and betrayal of trust is something on a personal level. The word that comes to mind is Disafection or the lost of loyaty or allegiance.

In fact what our government and a few people on Wall Street have been doing can be considered Sabotage.

If you know anything about the Six Sins of a Citizen, then you know what these "international" bankers are doing but it is not treason.

The real problem it seems is Beemer the cut and paste guy is back, which we will be reading the same old stuff that is being thrown up here, nothing new or useful.

 

[RLENT]

Yes after reading it again, it is a dumb statement and I do think we have beemer "the cut and paste" guy back.

Well, I dunno .... you figure that Beemer is the only guy that cuts and pastes ? ..... or the only person on EO with this (or a similar) point of view.

That's right - you were gone while ChefDennis was slammin' and jammin' on the cut and paste ... so you are probably unaware that there is at least two of 'em here in EO land (mebbe three if EndGame isn't who you think he is) ..... come to think of it .... I think the Rev did a little cut-n-paste too ...... might be others as well.

I guess you can concentrate on the Beemer aspect and ride that hobbyhorse until it keels over ..... but honestly - that sounds like a conspiracy theory to me (... odd coming from you of all people) .... or just decide to discuss whatever is posted by this dude (or dudette) on the merits ...... or not .....

BTW, what are you basing this EndGame=Beemer on, exactly ?

Treason can not be applied to international anything, sorry.

Sorry greg, but this statement above isn't one of your finest .... treason can indeed be applied to "international somethings" because treason often deals with citizens helping other enemies of a country or sovereign (often external, but not always) - which would bring in the international aspect.

So while the act of treason may well be something committed by a citizen, treason, in toto, may well involve "international" ..... One shouldn't be so literal, when reading the phrase "international bankers" ..... to think that it means bankers of foreign citizenship ... ain't necessarily the same thing. Besides, I believe EndGame's original words on the treason aspect dealt with "banking cartels" - no international specified there (although he did mention it later on)

The fact is a person has to either be a citizen of a country or hold an oath of allegiance to the country or sovereign in order for treason to be the case.

Yup, quite true.

For this statement to be any close to sensible, the international bankers have to be US bankers and allied with an enemy, like Al Qaida

That's incorrect - they (banks) wouldn't have to be allied with with anyone (observe the use of the "or" in the definition contained in the Constitution) - you appear to be assuming that all enemies are foreign - something that would appear to be in conflict of the oath of office that members of Congress take:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;"

And why does the enemy have to be "like Al-Qaida ? Does being an "enemy" require an act of Congress .... or a Presidential finding ? Does an enemy have to external or foreign to be to be categorized as one ?

Or does one just merely have to do those things which constitute being an adversary or enemy ?

but again we are not talking about US bankers are we?

Oh .... I wouldn't bet the farm on that .... many US banks have foreign branches and international operations, often staffed by citizens of the countries where they are located.

I (personally) would consider that the phrase "international bankers" could (and does, in fact) include US bankers.

The term is broadly defined in English law (you did study engish history?) and I think that our founding fathers wanted to eliminate the use of Treason for petty issues, like speaking ill of the monarchy.

No doubt - but I really don't think that we are talking about anything petty here ..... dunno about you, but I certainly wouldn't consider the enslavement of a populace as petty ..... (particularly when I is one of that populace)

Trust is a different issue, and betrayal of trust is something on a personal level.

Not at all - you confusing a strict legal definition with a functional definition. The definition that I provided is a functional definition.

Are you saying that being a citizen is not a trust that can be betrayed ? I certainly consider citizenship a trust - indeed, a sacred one. And I would hold that anyone committing treason is guilty of betraying that trust.

When one is a member of a group (such as a country, but really any group) one is indeed in a position of trust - one is expected to adhere to the moral code of the group (in a country's case, it's laws) and to not do things which would be bad for the group as whole, or would do something against it's survival - or cause it's demise. That is the position of trust one is placed in, simply by being a member of the group.

The word that comes to mind is Disaffection or the lost of loyaty or allegiance.

Neither of these words, in and of themselves, encompass action - they are merely indicate one's disposition towards another (person, group, etc.) - treason is an overt act - hence, the betrayal aspect in the definition which I gave. And BTW:

"In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of disloyalty to one's sovereign or nation."

In fact what our government and a few people on Wall Street have been doing can be considered Sabotage.

Well, I certainly can't argue with that - I doubt EndGame would either ...... we might even get Letzrock to buy into that one (despite his being a Ghoul fan)

If you know anything about the Six Sins of a Citizen, then you know what these "international" bankers are doing but it is not treason.

You say it's not - and I say it is. I say it is, because it is war .... not really one with guns (at least not yet) .... but an economic war against the citizens of this country (and others) ....

The real problem it seems is Beemer the cut and paste guy is back,

The real problem eh ?

You would do well to look at that statement you have made above - all alone and in isolation - and consider it well.

Greg, I dunno who EndGame is .... whether he (or she) is Beemer .... or someone else ... and I really doubt that you do either. I really don't care - I'm willing to judge the posts on their merits, and not make it about the personalities. One thing I do know however, is that they aren't me.

which we will be reading the same old stuff that is being thrown up here, nothing new or useful.

The same old stuff .... ? ... nothing new and useful ?

I'd really be careful there on that one .... someone might say the same thing about you and your championing of the FairTax ....

While you might well be aware of some of what this individual is posting, others may not be .... therefore, while it might be "old stuff" and "not new or useful" to you, others' mileage may vary .......