TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @IrishKat00
@IrishKat00 - Irish Kat❤️
Wow listen to this former litigation lawyer and the original intent of the constitution. https://t.co/ojQNCicE3E
Video Transcript AI Summary
Publius Hulda, a retired litigation attorney who writes on the original intent of the Constitution using the Federalist Papers, argues that the Supreme Court has ignored the Federalist Papers and the framers’ Constitution for two centuries. He contends the attorney general’s opinion raises questions but fails to cite article, section, and verse where Congress is authorized to restrict arms, asserting that when the Constitution was ratified, the federal government’s powers were enumerated and that there was no delegation of authority to restrict the people’s arms.
Hulda emphasizes that Article I, Section 8 lists powers delegated to Congress for the national government, but he asserts that the framers did not grant Congress the power to restrict arms. He cites Federalist Paper No. 46 by James Madison to support the claim that the American people are armed so they can defend themselves, their communities, and their states from a potentially tyrannical federal government that oversteps constitutional limits. He cites specific constitutional text: Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, and notes that Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792, requiring every able-bodied male citizen aged 18 to 46 (excluding federal officers and employees) to buy a rifle, ammunition, and report to local militia training. He also references Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, which he says authorizes letters of marque and reprisal, enabling privateers who conducted private warfare during conflicts such as the War of 1812.
Hulda asserts that the framers contemplated a heavily armed people and that the federal government was never authorized to restrict arms in any fashion. He claims that attempts to restrict arms represent usurpation of powers not possessed by the federal government. He criticizes the Attorney General for basing arguments on court opinions rather than the Constitution, arguing there is a vast gulf between the two. He references that there are 200 years’ worth of Supreme Court opinions and quotes Charles Evans Hughes saying that the Constitution means what the judges say it means, labeling this prevailing dogma as a lie and arguing it has led to a federal government no longer constrained by constitutional chains.
Hulda contends that the oath of office requires obedience to the Constitution, not to the Supreme Court, which he views as a creature of the Constitution and fully subject to its terms. He counters the AG’s claim that the Supreme Court is the exclusive and final authority on federal powers by noting that the framers anticipated corruption and lawlessness among judges. Therefore, Congress, the President, and the states possess checks on the Supreme Court. He cites Federalist No. 81, where Hamilton describes impeachment and removal as checks on lawless judges, and asserts the President’s oath is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, not to obey the Supreme Court. He references Madison’s Virginia Resolutions, which state that states, as the sovereign parties to the Constitution, are the final authority on whether the federal government has violated the Constitution and may check all three branches, including the judiciary, by nullifying their acts if necessary. He notes he did not finish his argument and hopes to discuss the so-called nullification crisis of 1832 during questions. Speaker 0 thanks him for his comments.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We've got five minutes. If you would, please make sure your green light is on, and then state your name and title for the record. Thank you.
Speaker 1: It is on. My name is Publius Hulda. I'm a retired litigation attorney, and I write on the original intent of the constitution using the Federalist Papers. I do not go by supreme court opinions because for two hundred years, the supreme court has been ignoring the Federalist Papers and the constitution our framers given, and they have gone off on tangents of their own which have nothing to do with the constitution. The attorney general's opinion begs the question.
He states that states can't nullify acts of the federal government which are authorized by constitution. But then he completely fails to cite article section and verse, a clause where the constitution delegates to congress authority to restrict our arms. When we ratified the constitution, we created the federal government. We listed, enumerated every power we granted to our creature, the federal government. Article one, section eight, clauses one through 16 lists most of the powers we delegated to congress for the government for for the country at large.
We didn't put on our list that our creature could restrict our arms. We didn't delegate this power to congress because our framers wanted the American people to be heavily armed. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison write about this in the Federalist Papers. In Federalist Paper number 46, James Madison writes why the American people are armed. It is so we can defend ourselves, our communities, and our states from the federal government in the event it becomes tyrannical and oversteps the constitutional limits on its powers.
In Article one, Section eight, Clause 16, pursuant to that, Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792 where they required every able-bodied male citizen between the ages of 18 and 46 except for federal officers and employees to buy a rifle, ammunition, and report to their local militia for training. Pursuant to Article one, Section eight, clause 11, congress is authorized to issue letters of mark and reprisal. This is what authorizes private warships to make war on our enemies. These were the privateers who fired on British ships during the war of eighteen twelve. Our framers contemplated a people who were heavily armed.
That is why we never delegated to our creature authority to restrict our arms in any fashion whatsoever. And when the federal government attempts to do so, they are usurping powers which they do not possess. The attorney general goes by court opinions, not the constitution. There is a vast gulf between the two. We have 200 of supreme court opinions, and mister chairman very kindly shared some of these two hundred years of supreme court opinions, which have nothing to do with the constitution.
Charles Evans Hughes said over a hundred years ago, the constitution means what the judges say it means. That has been the prevailing dogma ever since and generations of lawyers have been indoctrinated with this lie. That is why we no longer have a federal government which is held down by the chains of a constitution. What we have is rule by five, five judges on the supreme court who claim the power to do whatever they want to us and our country. So today, we have two offices, what the constitution says and what the supreme court says.
Well, your oath of office requires you to obey the constitution, not the supreme court. The supreme court is merely a creature of this constitution and is completely subject to its terms. My third point, the AG asserts that the attorney general I'm sorry, that the supreme court is the exclusive and final authority on the extent of the powers of the federal government. But our framers knew that supreme court judges were as likely as anybody else to be corrupt, usurp powers, and act lawlessly. So congress, the president, and the states all have checks on the supreme court.
Hamilton shows in federalist number 81 that congress's check on lawless supreme lawless federal judges is to impeach them and remove them from office. The president has his oath of office as a check on the supreme court. The president's oath is to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution. It is not to obey the supreme court. The supreme court was not set up in our constitution as the superior branch of the federal government.
And then there's no need for me to well, Madison says in his report on the Virginia resolutions that it is a plain principle founded in common sense that the states as the sovereign parties to the constitution are the final authority on whether the federal government has violated the constitution and that we may that the states may check all three branches of the federal government, not just they may check the judiciary, the executive, and the legislative branches by nullifying their acts. If the judicial branch connives with other branches in usurping powers, our constitution will be destroyed if we do not stop them. This is what James Madison said in his notes on nullify in his report on the Virginia resolution. Sorry I didn't have time to finish. I hope that during questions someone will ask me about the so called nullification crisis of eighteen thirty two.
Speaker 0: Thank thank you very much for your comments.
@IrishKat00 - Kat❤️
Video Transcript AI Summary
Irish people were the first slaves in America, a history that is largely ignored. They were taken from Ireland, treated like animals, and sold for less than African slaves in the 1600s. Known as "white cargo," over 300,000 Irish were shipped to the Caribbean and American colonies.
They endured harsh conditions on sugar plantations, dying from disease, beatings, and starvation, with unmarked graves and forgotten names. Some were transported in coffin ships, never to return. The term "redneck" originated from the Irish laborers burned by the Caribbean sun.
While others were freed, remembered, or repaid, the Irish received nothing. History was rewritten, renaming them indentured servants to conceal the truth, resulting in no reparations, monuments, or recognition in education.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Irish people were the first slaves in America and nobody talks about it. They were ripped from their homes in Ireland, chained like animals and sold for less than African slaves. In the 1600s, they were called white cargo. Over 300,000 shipped off to the Caribbean Caribbean and American colonies. They worked brutal sugar plantations under a son that didn't care what color their skin was.
Many died from disease, beatings and starvation. Their graves unmarked, their names forgotten. Some were crammed into coffin ships, packed below deck like freight, never to return. Even the word redneck, it comes from the Irish, burned raw in the Caribbean heat. But while others were freed, remembered or repaid, the Irish got nothing.
History was rewritten. They were renamed indentured servants just to silence the truth. No reparations, no monuments, no place in the classroom because pain has no color and truth has no sign.
@IrishKat00 - Kat❤️
What was that about the Gates Foundation https://t.co/8YtaSaSENn
Video Transcript AI Summary
According to the speaker, the Gates Foundation provides 88% of the foundation donations to the World Health Organization. The speaker claims this violates competitiveness laws in both Europe and the United States. They assert that these donations are not independent or charitably funded, but rather directed donations, which are forbidden under the tax laws on both sides of the Atlantic and have no place in the charter of the World Health Organization or any UN-affiliated organizations. The speaker alleges this constitutes tax crime, racketeering, money laundering, and racketeering leading to murder and global terrorism.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Somehow inflating numbers. Let me be unambiguous. Under every treatment of tax provision, if I were to tell you that there is an 88% controlling interest of any organization, you might conclude that that that actually aggregates into a controlling interest. And it turns out that if we look at the foundation donations to the World Health Organization, eighty eight percent of those come from a single organization, the Gates Foundation. That constitutes a violation of every competitiveness law in Europe and every competitiveness law in The United States.
This is absolutely not only not an independent charitably funded donation but more importantly, under the tax laws on both sides of the Atlantic, this constitutes directed donations which specifically are forbidden and do not have any place anywhere in the charter of the World Health Organization or any of the UN affiliated organizations. When I say this is a crime, I mean it's a tax crime, a racketeering crime, a money laundering crime, and now the crime of racketeering leading to murder and global terrorist.