GCM Home | Bible Search | Rules | Donate | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter

Author Topic: Constitution and Santorum  (Read 3691 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Johnb

  • Global Moderator
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10312
  • Manna: 149
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Constitution and Santorum
« Reply #15 on: February 29, 2012, 06:24:23 AM »
It is today a fraternal organization.  The line in the constitution was referring to our elected officials using US office titles that described them as other than elected officials.  There was a lot of discussion as to what to call George Washington and these titles were considered but he said to just call him mister president.  You are really grasping at straws on this one and as I said it is just goofy.  Obama would be much more likely to take the title of king.  Why not stick to actual issues.  This is even worse that the Obama birth certificate issue.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Constitution and Santorum
« Reply #15 on: February 29, 2012, 06:24:23 AM »

Offline DaveW

  • Tikkun International
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12515
  • Manna: 162
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Constitution and Santorum
« Reply #16 on: March 02, 2012, 10:14:35 AM »
Masonic lodge is not a cult.  They provide medical help for burn and cripple children at no cost.  Hundreds of doctors donate their time and skills.  It is a fraternal organization that raises millions to help children.
I did not say "cult." I said "occult." All of the organizations I listed have demonic rituals.

Yes at the lower levels they do a lot of fraternal and charitable things.  But that is just like Hamas building schools and hospitals. The good they do on the surface can never make up for the evil underneith.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Constitution and Santorum
« Reply #16 on: March 02, 2012, 10:14:35 AM »

Amo

  • Guest
Re: Constitution and Santorum
« Reply #17 on: March 03, 2012, 06:39:45 AM »

Amo

  • Guest
Re: Constitution and Santorum
« Reply #18 on: March 03, 2012, 06:47:21 AM »
Quote
It is today a fraternal organization.  The line in the constitution was referring to our elected officials using US office titles that described them as other than elected officials.  There was a lot of discussion as to what to call George Washington and these titles were considered but he said to just call him mister president.  You are really grasping at straws on this one and as I said it is just goofy.  Obama would be much more likely to take the title of king.  Why not stick to actual issues.  This is even worse that the Obama birth certificate issue.

          No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States:--And no person holding any
          office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of
          any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or
          foreign state.
[/size]


The obvious intent of the above, does not agree with your reasoning.  There are no kings in the US, no princes, and of course no foreign states.  The intent is most clear and obvious, that no one hold a foreign title while serving as an elected official of the government of the USA.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Constitution and Santorum
« Reply #18 on: March 03, 2012, 06:47:21 AM »
Pinterest: GraceCentered.com


Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Constitution and Santorum
« Reply #19 on: March 03, 2012, 08:00:30 AM »



Amo

  • Guest
Re: Constitution and Santorum
« Reply #20 on: March 03, 2012, 10:10:04 AM »
Wow!  The following can be found at this site -

http://www.barefootsworld.net/constit2.html

    No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatsoever from any King, Prince, or foreign State. 69

    69 "A wise jealousy of foreign influences in the affairs of government," says a writer on our Constitution, "will amply justify this provision."

    A provision in almost the same words was in the first section of Article VI of the Articles of Confederation. It permitted persons holding office under a State to accept, with the assent of Congress, the objectionable gifts or distinctions; but the constitutions of at least two of the States at that time forbade them altogether. Of course, a republic born of the misrule of a monarchy should not grant titles of nobility. The institution called nobility had possessed itself of most of the posts of trust and honor to the hopeless exclusion of the rest of the people, and by prestige and by the favoritism of the government of which it was so large a part it had gained the greater share of the lands and other wealth of England and of the continental countries.

    A gift from the King of France to our ambassador during the Revolution is said to have suggested this provision. "Any present . . . of any kind whatever" was said by the Attorney General's office in 1902 to prevent the acceptance of photographs from Prince Henry of Prussia, brother of the emperor of Germany, by civil and military officers of the United States. But while Jefferson was President he accepted (1806) from Alexander I of Russia a bust of that Emperor, which he said would be "one of the most valued ornaments of the retreat I am preparing for myself at my native home." He said that he had laid it down as a law of his official conduct not to accept anything but books, pamphlets, or other things of minor value; but his "particular esteem" for the Emperor "places his image in my mind above the scope of the law."

    This prohibition of the granting of titles of nobility by the Nation is repeated 72 as to the States in the first clause of the next section.

    By the charter issued to Lord Baltimore in 1632 he was authorized to grant titles of nobility in Maryland. A claim to like authority was made under one or two other colonial charters.

    In 1810 Congress proposed an amendment, the original Thirteenth amendment, to add a heavy penalty to this clause by this wording,

        "If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

    It was thought, at least in the 20th century, that the proposed amendment lacked the necessary ratifying votes. Subsequent research of recent date (1984 continuing to now, 2009) show that the proposed amendment was indeed properly ratified, the State Department WAS notified and was on the books and records of the various States until at least 1876. From 1810 to 1812, twelve states ratified this amendment. The War of 1812 destroyed the library of Congress and these documents were thought destroyed, but in 1994 it was discovered they still exist. After receipt of an inquiry from President James Monroe and Secretary of State John Quincy Adams in 1818, Virginia confirmed the ratification March 12, 1819 with the act authorizing the publishing of the VA Revised Code in 1819. The Revised Code contained the Constitution -- including the original Thirteenth Amendment as proposed to the states for ratification in 1810, which the Virginia House and Senate quite propery had done May 1, 1810

    The Virginia legislature subsequently authorized the distribution of the Revised Code of 1819 -- with ten copies designated for the executive branch of Virginia, five copies for the Clerk of the general assembly, and four copies for the Secretary of State of the United States, received not later than 29 August 1821; one copy each for Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and President James Monroe; one copy each for the federal Senate, House, and Library of Congress, and one copy for every judge in the courts of the United States in Virginia. Thus was the Federal government notified of the ratification by Virginia. By February of 1820, sufficient copies of the Revised Code had been printed to make it available for public sale, and it was advertised as such in a Richmond newspaper. Research conducted on this subject indicates that at least six or seven other Virginia newspapers also carried advertisements for the new Code.

    Article V of the Constitution does not stipulate that the States, having ratified or rejected a constitutional amendment, be required to report their actions in any one particular way. Therefore, under the Tenth Amendment, each State is left free to publish the actions of its legislative bodies in any manner whatsoever. Federal law as of 1818, and as amended in 1820, requires that the Secretary of State give public notice of such ratifications as may be reported by the States. That law cannot and does not impair the rights of the States to issue their notices in any manner that their lawfully elected representatives deem proper. Indeed, the Revised Code of 1819 was, and is, the fulfillment of a contract made between those in government and those who have given their consent to be governed, in this case the free men of Virginia.

    Evidence has been found that only 10 States may have been required to ratify in 1812, not 13, as two of the States, Connecticut and Rhode Island, did not become full States until 1818 and 1842 respectively, as they were still operating under their original charters and had not instituted a proper State constitution as required by the Constitution until these dates. However, the proposed Thirteenth Amendment was properly ratified with the publishing of the Virginia statutes in 1819. Research has proven that this amendment was unlawfully deleted from the Constitution of the United States of America in random years until 1876 without legislation from any state, or congressional action on the national level.

    Avenues are being sought to reinstate this original and lawful Thirteenth Amendment as it was never repealed, but only deleted by outright fraud. Because of this fraud and others, the members of the judiciary and law professions now control all three branches of government. Jefferson warned of this. It is thought that one effect of this original Thirteenth Amendment would have precluded any member of the Bar Associations from citizenship and the ability of holding any office under the Constitution of the United States. If the original Thirteenth Amendment were reinstated, as members of the Bar Associations retain a title of honor, i.e. "Esquire", setting them apart from the common man, or as possessed of special privileges or immunities before the courts and in government not available to the common man, they would therefore be excluded from citizenship and eligibility to office in government. There is some doubt in this, however.

    The main effect that restoration and implementation of the original Thirteenth Amendment would have in these times in the 21st Century would be the heavy penalty to the members of the judiciary, politicians, and the political "war chests" which are on the "take" of emoluments from the lobbyists of the foreign nations, foreign special interest groups, and foreign/multinational corporations.

    "They saw all the consequences in the principle and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle." -- James Madison


Amo

  • Guest
Re: Constitution and Santorum
« Reply #21 on: March 09, 2012, 09:44:32 AM »
George Washington Farewell Address, Philadelphia, PA, 1796-09-17    

"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.
Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combination and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.
Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense, but in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them."(George Washington Farewell Address, Philadelphia, PA, 1796-09-17)

The Knights of Malta have been around since 1098.  They have been and are involved in the constant political intrigue and wars of Europe.  The Order of Malta has ambassadors or diplomatic representatives in more than eighty nations, and enjoys Permanent Observer status at the United Nations General Assembly.  They are a Roman Catholic order, headquartered at the Vatican.  

The Vatican itself is a foreign political entity of Europe and the world.  It entertains ambassadors from 179 different nations or provinces.  It has itself been constantly embroiled, many times even the very center of political intrigue and war within Europe and abroad.  Throughout it's history it has constantly politically aligned itself with kings and governments which were hostile toward religious and civil liberty, including Hitler and Mussolini.  

It is no surprise therefore, that as the number of Catholic politicians running our country has increased, the implementation of the Vatican's globalist agenda from within increases, while we continue daily to lose every single Constitutional right, freedom, and protection we once had.  Rick Santorum will only be more of the same, being a Knight of Malta himself.  Newt Gingrich would be no different being a recent convert from the Baptist faith to that of the Roman Catholic faith himself.  

Catholic politicians already form the largest single block of power in our congress and Supreme Court, more than twice as many Catholics in congress than any other faith, 156 members down from 162 in the previous Congress, and six out of nine Supreme Court Justices.   Why will we now hand over the Executive power of this nation to a Catholic also.  Will this not be the death knell of this once free and prosperous nation.  

Rome has already achieved great power and influence over two of our three branches of government which were put in place to maintain a balance of power.  Let us not now hand over our third and final branch to them by electing a Catholic President from this foreign globalist political institution.  2+2 equals 4 folks.  If the rise of the number of Catholic politicians belonging to this foreign political power is and has been concurrent to loss of our Constitutional freedoms, rights, and protections, this means something.  If the rise of the number of Catholic politicians running our nation has and is concurrent to total fiscal irresponsibility to the point of 16 trillion dollars of debt, this means something.  If the rise of the number of Catholic politicians running our country is concurrent to the implementation of a globalist agenda from the same, i.e. redistribution of wealth, natural resources, commerce, and jobs to other nations, this means something.

Wake up America!  The rise of the number of Catholic politicians running this nation, has been concurrent to the decline and near future fall of the same, this means something.  Let us Learn from history.  The rise of the Papacy to power was the decline and fall of the western Roman Empire within the same.  This empire which survived over a thousand years as a pagan political entity, was brought to naught within 200 years of accepting and enforcing Roman Catholic dogma and teaching.  The following testimony is no less true today, than when spoken, and can easily be seen by all those who will take an unbiased look at history, and the present as well.

THE HISTORY OF PROTESTANTISM
Rev. James Aitken Wylie, LL.D
1808-1890


But the success of the Papacy, when closely examined, is not so surprising as it looks. It cannot be justly pronounced legitimate, or fairly won. Rome has ever been swimming with the tide. The evils and passions of society, which a true benefactress would have made it her business to cure -at least, to alleviate -Rome has studied rather to foster into strength, that she might be borne to power on the foul current which she herself had created. Amid battles, bloodshed, and confusion, has her path lain. The edicts of subservient Councils, the forgeries of hireling priests, the arms of craven monarchs, and the thunderbolts of excommunication have never been wanting to open her path. Exploits won by weapons of this sort are what her historians delight to chronicle. These are the victories that constitute her glory! And then, there remains yet another and great deduction from the apparent grandeur of her success, in that, after all, it is the success of only a few -a caste -the clergy. For although, during her early career, the Roman Church rendered certain important services to society -of which it will delight us to make mention in fitting place when she grew to maturity, and was able to develop her real genius, it was felt and acknowledged by all that her principles implied the ruin of all interests save her own, and that there was room in the world for none but herself. If her march, as shown in history down to the sixteenth century, is ever onwards, it is not less true that behind, on her path, lie the wrecks of nations, and the ashes of literature, of liberty, and of civilization. .(Book I. History of the Papacy. By Rev. J.A. Wylie, LL.D. Chapter I. Origin of the Papacy.)

A testimony given specifically to Americans -

CHRIST AND ANTICHRIST
by Samuel J. Cassels


In America, particularly, is this investigation important. In all the
countries over which it has triumphed, Popery, like the anaconda, has
wound around its folds of art, of cunning, of superstition and of power,
until, enclosing everything in its too friendly embraces, it has, with one
tremendous effort, crushed the nation to death. It sends forth its
missionaries; it gathers its schools and colleges; it erects its cathedrals and
builds its churches; it is patriotic, benevolent, charitable. Its alms and
offerings attract the vulgar, its austerities and penances convince the
sceptical. It is at first tolerated; then approved; next obeyed! But now
come the dread realities of the system, taxation, passive submission,

excommunications, interdicts, crusades, the inquisition, destruction. Yes,
Popery has well nigh destroyed every country in which it has been
predominant. The liberties and national prosperity of a people cannot coexist
with such a system.


Let then, Americans — Americans, who have never witnessed a Court of
Inquisition, or an Auto-da-fe, on their virgin soil; Americans, whose
national liberties are still fragrant with the blood of revolutionary
forefathers; Americans, whose proud eminence in the civilized world, gives
them more to lose than other nations; let Americans especially examine
this subject well. And if, in such an examination, the following pages shall
contribute but a mite to the discovery of the truth, the author will feel
himself more than compensated for the labor they have cost him.
(Pgs. 125&126)











« Last Edit: March 11, 2012, 09:57:43 AM by Amo »

Amo

  • Guest
Re: Constitution and Santorum
« Reply #22 on: March 11, 2012, 09:55:44 AM »
Another very interesting article concerning Obama, and thus what we can expect concerning the objectives of Santorum or Gingrich if either gets elected.

http://www.biblebasedministries.co.uk/2010/01/20/the-vatican-obama-alliance/

Offline Johnb

  • Global Moderator
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10312
  • Manna: 149
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Constitution and Santorum
« Reply #23 on: March 11, 2012, 01:02:32 PM »
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07477a.htm

It is not a title give by the US government nor a king or foreign power but by the Catholic church just goofy.

David
Although I am no longer active I am both a mason and Shriner.  It is not cult or occult there are no demonic rituals.

The same logic would disqualify anyone that was a mason even though most of our presidents including George Washington was a mason and most of those involved in the tea party were also masons.


Offline Johnb

  • Global Moderator
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10312
  • Manna: 149
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Constitution and Santorum
« Reply #25 on: March 11, 2012, 04:07:57 PM »
The Knights of Malta offer a specific ministry of charity. They serve the poor, especially the sick and those suffering from natural disasters. The Knights maintain hospitals and clinics throughout the world. The smallest sovereign state in the world serves the needs of the sick in over 120 nations.

Malta is a Parliamentary Republic

They have no king and any title of knight is purely honary.

Also so he is not in office now.  

This is more ridiculous than Obama's birth certificate.  He has not been given a real title of nobility by anyone.  By any sain peron this is clearly not what the constitution was talking about.  

John F. Kennedy was a member of the knights of Columbus so I guess he was an unconstitutional president since the pope is tec. the rule of a country. rofl
« Last Edit: March 11, 2012, 04:16:55 PM by Johnb »

Offline Johnb

  • Global Moderator
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10312
  • Manna: 149
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Constitution and Santorum
« Reply #26 on: March 11, 2012, 07:38:11 PM »
Almo
This is  discussion of politics not a forum for Catholic bashing therefore I am deleting your last post.  

Offline Johnb

  • Global Moderator
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10312
  • Manna: 149
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Constitution and Santorum
« Reply #27 on: March 12, 2012, 05:53:35 AM »
Amo's
last post was split and moved to the Catholic forum.  That seemed to be a more appropriate place for a discussion of the Catholic church.  This topic is about the constitution and Rich Santorum not the evils of the Catholic church.


Offline Johnb

  • Global Moderator
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10312
  • Manna: 149
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Constitution and Santorum
« Reply #29 on: March 17, 2012, 12:26:10 PM »
Amo
glad to see you back posting!