Wow

[Billy_Kinetta]

Stunning.

She hesitated to sing the national anthem at the Lincoln Memorial. Then, she slayed.

 

[Mac1958]

Cool the way everyone applauds, she kills it.

Too bad the trolls had to immediately change the topic.

 

[B. Kidd]

Makes me long fer' the old days when America was exceptional!

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Stunning.

She hesitated to sing the national anthem at the Lincoln Memorial. Then, she slayed.

Actually brought a tear to my eye.
I normally dont care for ad libbing as far as how it's sung but you cant deny the power of her performance.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A super performance.

 

[Picaro]

Stunning.

She hesitated to sing the national anthem at the Lincoln Memorial. Then, she slayed.

Hope this becomes a viral trend, in the face of the scumbaggery at the 9/11 memorial. According to Pogo, it's 'taunting' somebody or other, so let's make 'taunting' a routine feature of visiting national monuments and memorials.

 

[Dale Smith]

Be so glad in our land of freedom, dale, that goofballs get to say what they want.

Freedom? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You are a friggin' DEBT slave, dumb ass. You are spied on each and every day....allllll your on-line and cellphone activity is put into a data base with information that is crunched by 80 some odd fusion centers each one with a thousand or so "Eric Snowdens" just typing in key words to see who needs to be put under further survelliance because they might have loyalty issues concerning this corporate "gubermint" and since you have NO fucking clue as to why it matters that all "gubermint" institutes including the courts are "incorporated"? Far be it from me to spoil your illusion....I doubt you could handle it anyway.

Since you don't have driver license, you don't pay any taxes....... Do you have a horse? How do you pay for your food?

Unless I am using a vehicle to do commerce, a driver's license is not required and neither are tags. If I am "traveling", I am not required to have either. They are simply acts, stautes and codes foisted upon their U.S citizens...not Americans...there is a huge difference.,


CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right."Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

And what makes you think that I do not pay lawful taxes????

 

[AvgGuyIA]

I admire her patriotism, but I don't like how blacks sing the Anthem adding all those flourishes that don't belong, especially the last note. Sing it straight or don't sing it at all.

 

[Kat]

Gave me chills all over!! ♥♥

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Be so glad in our land of freedom, dale, that goofballs get to say what they want.

Freedom? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You are a friggin' DEBT slave, dumb ass. You are spied on each and every day....allllll your on-line and cellphone activity is put into a data base with information that is crunched by 80 some odd fusion centers each one with a thousand or so "Eric Snowdens" just typing in key words to see who needs to be put under further survelliance because they might have loyalty issues concerning this corporate "gubermint" and since you have NO fucking clue as to why it matters that all "gubermint" institutes including the courts are "incorporated"? Far be it from me to spoil your illusion....I doubt you could handle it anyway.

Since you don't have driver license, you don't pay any taxes....... Do you have a horse? How do you pay for your food?

Unless I am using a vehicle to do commerce, a driver's license is not required and neither are tags. If I am "traveling", I am not required to have either. They are simply acts, stautes and codes foisted upon their U.S citizens...not Americans...there is a huge difference.,


CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right."Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

And what makes you think that I do not pay lawful taxes????

That's fine.

Keep driving around like that. You will be financially and legally raped after the accident.

 

[RubberGloveSeduction]

Unless I am using a vehicle to do commerce, a driver's license is not required and neither are tags. If I am "traveling", I am not required to have either. They are simply acts, stautes and codes foisted upon their U.S citizens...not Americans...there is a huge difference.,

CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right."Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

More regurgitating of crackpot sovereign citizen rhetoric, the courts have consistently ruled against idiots who try to use what you're spouting as a defense.

Have you actually read Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago? I doubt it. It was from 1929 and relates to a city's authority to require special licenses for bus drivers. Why is Mr. "I know infinitely more" quoting a ruling on city authority to prove the state's (lack of) jurisdiction on driver's licenses or authority on federal government highways? Because he doesn't actually know anything, he's just a copy-paste computer warrior.

Thompson vs. Smith is from 1930, when a city police chief revoked some dude's license because of convictions for speeding. The court ruled that the city ordinance, which gave the police chief the right to revoke based on his opinion, as void since it gave administrative power via an opinion over legislative. The issue wasn't the right of the state to restrict driving privileges, it was about whether a police chief could do say based on an opinion.

Ironically in the ruling you're quoting actually works against what you claim, in the Thompson vs. Smith ruling they confirmed the state's rights to issue permits to allow driving on the roads:

The issuance and revocation of such permits by a city is merely a means of exercising the police power of the State delegated to the city to regulate the use of the public highways in the interest of the public safety and welfare. The Constitution of Virginia expressly provides that “the exercise of the police power of the State shall never be abridged.” (Constitution Virginia, section 159).


Above is prefect example of internet blowhard who's a sucker for believing everything he reads and thinks repeating them without actually taking the time to understand them makes him some wise authority on the law.

 

[Dale Smith]

Be so glad in our land of freedom, dale, that goofballs get to say what they want.

Freedom? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You are a friggin' DEBT slave, dumb ass. You are spied on each and every day....allllll your on-line and cellphone activity is put into a data base with information that is crunched by 80 some odd fusion centers each one with a thousand or so "Eric Snowdens" just typing in key words to see who needs to be put under further survelliance because they might have loyalty issues concerning this corporate "gubermint" and since you have NO fucking clue as to why it matters that all "gubermint" institutes including the courts are "incorporated"? Far be it from me to spoil your illusion....I doubt you could handle it anyway.

Since you don't have driver license, you don't pay any taxes....... Do you have a horse? How do you pay for your food?

Unless I am using a vehicle to do commerce, a driver's license is not required and neither are tags. If I am "traveling", I am not required to have either. They are simply acts, stautes and codes foisted upon their U.S citizens...not Americans...there is a huge difference.,


CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right."Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

And what makes you think that I do not pay lawful taxes????

That's fine.

Keep driving around like that. You will be financially and legally raped after the accident.

Billy, what makes you think that I don't have insurance or that I haven't positioned myself to financially take care of someone lest I inflict damage on their vehicle and/or their persons? I am a lot more aware of what is going on than I was when we posted on the old Yahoo board and I thought that you were being overly concerned about the Barrypuppet when he was elected but you had it and him nailed from the "git-go". I never, in my wildest dreams thought he would be as bad as he has been....it staggers the mind as to what he has done via his globalist masters.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Billy, what makes you think that I don't have insurance or that I haven't positioned myself to financially take care of someone lest I inflict damage on their vehicle and/or their persons? I am a lot more aware of what is going on than I was when we posted on the old Yahoo board and I thought that you were being overly concerned about the Barrypuppet when he was elected but you had it and him nailed from the "git-go". I never, in my wildest dreams thought he would be as bad as he has been....it staggers the mind as to what he has done via his globalist masters.

Driving on the public highway is not a right, Dale. Unless I misunderstood your post, I have to say it.

On Obama, he has been far worse than I ever imagined.

 

[Dale Smith]

Unless I am using a vehicle to do commerce, a driver's license is not required and neither are tags. If I am "traveling", I am not required to have either. They are simply acts, stautes and codes foisted upon their U.S citizens...not Americans...there is a huge difference.,

CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right."Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

More regurgitating of crackpot sovereign citizen rhetoric, the courts have consistently ruled against idiots who try to use what you're spouting as a defense.

Have you actually read Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago? I doubt it. It was from 1929 and relates to a city's authority to require special licenses for bus drivers. Why is Mr. "I know infinitely more" quoting a ruling on city authority to prove the state's (lack of) jurisdiction on driver's licenses or authority on federal government highways? Because he doesn't actually know anything, he's just a copy-paste computer warrior.

Thompson vs. Smith is from 1930, when a city police chief revoked some dude's license because of convictions for speeding. The court ruled that the city ordinance, which gave the police chief the right to revoke based on his opinion, as void since it gave administrative power via an opinion over legislative. The issue wasn't the right of the state to restrict driving privileges, it was about whether a police chief could do say based on an opinion.

Ironically in the ruling you're quoting actually works against what you claim, in the Thompson vs. Smith ruling they confirmed the state's rights to issue permits to allow driving on the roads:

The issuance and revocation of such permits by a city is merely a means of exercising the police power of the State delegated to the city to regulate the use of the public highways in the interest of the public safety and welfare. The Constitution of Virginia expressly provides that “the exercise of the police power of the State shall never be abridged.” (Constitution Virginia, section 159).


Above is prefect example of internet blowhard who's a sucker for believing everything he reads and thinks repeating them without actually taking the time to understand them makes him some wise authority on the law.

Bus drivers are doing commerce...they are being paid to drive thus they fall under that particular law...they are not traveling thus it is not the same thing at all. If someone gets their license yanked and then tries to use the ploy of "I was just "traveling"? That doesn't fly either because he had contracted prior and that "privilege" was taken away...because that is what the "state" can do if you decide to "contract" with them. Under the UCC everything is about cohension contracts with your "strawman"/ all caps legal fiction. Speeding is simply a violation of an act, statute or code and unless there is a victim, there is no crime. Let's say that I am pulled over for going 50 MPH in a 40 MPH zone ....who is the damaged party? Whom was it that was "victimized"? Under Common Law, if there is no victim, there is no crime but we are actually under the UCC and admiralty law and each city, town and county has their own set of acts, statutes and codes and they are all designed to bring in revenue for the corporate entity for the jurisdiction that they represent.Now, with that being said, I am not saying that people shoulld be able to speed 80 miles down a school zone during 8AM in the morning...not at all. But the fact is that revenue for corporate cities, towns and counties has gone up 600 percent for mere violations of traffic acts, statutes and codes....get it???

 

[Dale Smith]

Billy, what makes you think that I don't have insurance or that I haven't positioned myself to financially take care of someone lest I inflict damage on their vehicle and/or their persons? I am a lot more aware of what is going on than I was when we posted on the old Yahoo board and I thought that you were being overly concerned about the Barrypuppet when he was elected but you had it and him nailed from the "git-go". I never, in my wildest dreams thought he would be as bad as he has been....it staggers the mind as to what he has done via his globalist masters.

Driving on the public highway is not a right, Dale. Unless I misunderstood your post, I have to say it.

On Obama, he has been far worse than I ever imagined.

Are you saying that driving on a public road is a privilege?
Justice Tolman stated:

"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment."
Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147. \

Should one have to attain a license to walk down a public road or ride a bicycle as well? Demonstrating the ability to be able to drive a vehicle is something I totally agree with but it's not something that should compell someone to pay a fee in order to do so or "register" their vehicle anymore than one should have to register a firearm because it makes this corporate entity a second party entity of your possession thus subjects you to their rules, regulations, acts, stautes and codes which is totally unconstitutional.

As far as Barrypuppet goes with his "Hope and change" bullshit and "transforming America"? He has just about accomplished that by turning it into a third world shithole and banana republic....and the stupid masses are about to select Hitlery....America has become a friggin' Greek tragedy.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Billy, what makes you think that I don't have insurance or that I haven't positioned myself to financially take care of someone lest I inflict damage on their vehicle and/or their persons? I am a lot more aware of what is going on than I was when we posted on the old Yahoo board and I thought that you were being overly concerned about the Barrypuppet when he was elected but you had it and him nailed from the "git-go". I never, in my wildest dreams thought he would be as bad as he has been....it staggers the mind as to what he has done via his globalist masters.

Driving on the public highway is not a right, Dale. Unless I misunderstood your post, I have to say it.

On Obama, he has been far worse than I ever imagined.

Are you saying that driving on a public road is a privilege?

Yes.

 

[Dale Smith]

Billy, what makes you think that I don't have insurance or that I haven't positioned myself to financially take care of someone lest I inflict damage on their vehicle and/or their persons? I am a lot more aware of what is going on than I was when we posted on the old Yahoo board and I thought that you were being overly concerned about the Barrypuppet when he was elected but you had it and him nailed from the "git-go". I never, in my wildest dreams thought he would be as bad as he has been....it staggers the mind as to what he has done via his globalist masters.

Driving on the public highway is not a right, Dale. Unless I misunderstood your post, I have to say it.

On Obama, he has been far worse than I ever imagined.

Are you saying that driving on a public road is a privilege?

Yes.

I will politely disagree with you, my friend....good on ya.

 

[RubberGloveSeduction]

Are you saying that driving on a public road is a privilege?

What I was saying was the examples you brought up didn't support your position, it was merely snippets taken out of context.

However the answer to your question is yes. You are free to travel unrestricted, you aren't free to drive a vehicle on a public road unrestricted. The courts have consistently upheld the right of the state to permit and regulate driving on public roads.

Justice Tolman stated:

"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment."
Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147.

Congratulations, you have some 1933 case law related to the a court case about a guy denied a permit to be a contract hauler and are quoting part of the dissenting opinion. Like the others it doesn't not support your belief that you don't need a driver's license. This is what you lean on for your "I know infinitely more" spiel? You don't have any legal education but you can repeat what you've read from other retards on the internet and think what they say is right, even if don't even have an understanding of what you're regurgitating.

Should one have to attain a license to walk down a public road or ride a bicycle as well? Demonstrating the ability to be able to drive a vehicle is something I totally agree with but it's not something that should compell someone to pay a fee in order to do so or "register" their vehicle anymore than one should have to register a firearm because it makes this corporate entity a second party entity of your possession thus subjects you to their rules, regulations, acts, stautes and codes which is totally unconstitutional.

No, one shouldn't have to attain a license to walk down a public road or ride a bicycle, and your opinions on what is constitutional have only held up on websites of ignorant sovereign idiots claiming they have a way to beat the system.

He has just about accomplished that by turning it into a third world shithole and banana republic

Drama queen much? The United States is nothing like a third world shithole or banana republic.