Regarding the post from a Source (who does not speak English as a first language), the follow seems entirely too cryptic:

: Email from Source: I wish to inform you that the war between
: the two Factions will be certainly won by Faction Two.
: Faction Two needs Faction One because they cannot intervene
: in certain matters.

OK, what are those "matters?" Who determines their importance and who defines what constitutes an acceptable outcome?

: Whatever Faction One is planning, at the end, it will not
: work. In this optic, we need to anticipate the victory of
: George Bush, as his group is designated to take over the
: world (only for a while) within five years.

The haters on the left and the Democratic shouters in Florida have already begun to use the terms "civil war" and "disruptions" down in Florida: this is very omnious, as so many of those we hope might be loyal the union of States are now deployed overseas. Florida is, however, a place where many people are well-educated and many of them are well-armed. Those folks tend not to be in agreement with the Algore and Faction Uno of the New World Order. Those who do support the Algore are also those who do not own guns, and folks who have grown soft by becoming dependent on Big Government. They cannot think, they can only "feel" and thus, react from their emotions and feelings.

Gee, I think I feel a song coming on, here.

When Florida was first chartered as a Territory, the first President of the Council for this sovereign body was Andrew Jackson; the first edition of the Territorial Laws contains the Constitution for the United States with thirteen lawful amendments included, and that means that the original Thirteenth Amendment prohibiting Titles of Honour was printed as being correct, proper and valid. Although Florida did not become a State until 1845, three printings of its Territorial laws include the original Thirteenth Amendment (with the last one coming in 1838, or only seven years before Statehood).

Thus the argument can be made, soundly and logically, that Florida entered the union understanding that the original Thirteenth Amendment was the valid article XIII and that it was lawfully ratified and that it has never been lawfully repealed or replaced, only suppressed and then forgotten.

There does not seem to be any possible way to dispute the choices offered, those being George the W., and the Algore: it can be postulated, though, that recognition of the validity of the original Thirteenth Amendment can offer George the W. a fall back position in case the recount in Florida somehow goes against him and his faction of the Republican Party.

The Algore was videotaped attending a fundraiser with Buddhist monks and nuns who belong to a Buddhist sect which is and has been prominent in Taiwan for quite some time. Having studied the issue at some length, I can assure the readers of this Forum that Buddhist sects in China, and legitimate groups in Japan, constitute "foreign Powers" as defined in the original Thirteenth Amendment. To accept "emoluments" from such groups not only violates the campaign finance laws as passed by the Democratic-controlled Congress since 1976, it directly triggers the penalty contained in the prohibition on Titles of Honour and all such emoluments (or "pensions", i.e., properties which pay rents or annual stipends to the pensioner), and that penalty is loss of citizenship and disqualification from holding any office of trust or profit in the United States. This penalty cannot be appealed or set aside, it is a constitutional penalty and has its basis in the foundational law: so, too, the Constitution makes it clear that only a Citizen of the United States can become President, and that no person disqualifed from becoming President can be selected as the Vice President in Electoral College balloting. It is, therefore, both a constitutional trigger and an impeachable offense, one of the highest of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Furthermore, the legislature of South Carolina has the right to call up the original Thirteenth Amendment at any time, and review or complete the ratification process that was begun there and then tabled or suspended without subsequent action in 1814. W. Bush was overwhelmingly approved by the Republican Party there, and has won that State's popular vote, as well, and is entitled to those Electors.

Furthermore, if Bush has any real allies in South Carolina, they can call for a special session of the legislature to enact such a ratification, which will require all of the pundits and political pimps to confront the reality of the original Thirteenth, its ratification, its many publications by States and Territories, and its suppression by the pro-slavery forces of the Democratic Party in the late 1840s and early 1850s! Those who yearn for "revenge" for the burning of that State's capital during the War of Rebellion would be well-advised to set the pro-Bush forces in South Carolina to this task, to raise up the issue of "emoluments" from "foreign Powers", and to force these political leaders who have backed W. Bush with all of their resources to contend over it. South Carolina only needs the approval of their House of Representatives to complete the report of their legislature from 1814 to add one more ratification to the list of States which approved this amendment and made it into the fundamental law of the land. Of course, it might be "politic" to have the actions of the South Carolina Senate reviewed and re-voted, to reaffirm what they did in approving the original Thirteenth so many decades ago. Remember, it has never been lawfully argued that any of the States which seceded from the union actually left the union, as President Andrew Johnson's message of April 2nd, 1866 makes clear, in declaring the rebellion or insurrection of the States at an end. South Carolina never actually left the union, and its sovereign standing as a founding State of the federal system cannot be questioned now.

: Full consciousness and knowledge are the arms of today.

Agreed! And furthermore ... no court can overturn the actions of the South Carolina legislature and its votes on a constitutional amendment cannot be vetoed by either the Governor or the President. Neither can the federal authorities refuse to receive a legitimate notification of a ratification action taken by South Carolina, not for any reason. So, too, Connecticut, New York, and Rhode Island -- which all rejected the original Thirteenth Amendment -- can call up the measure and vote on it again, which would entail reviewing the publications of that lawful article by their freely-elected legislatures in the years after the ratification by Virginia (1819). New York's State Senate is aparently still in Republican control, and their governor, George Pataki, is a Yale graduate and has bet his political bankroll on George W. Bush. The odds of either New York or Rhode Island conducting a ratification vote are very small, but then again, just bringing the subject into the public's view would create a huge controversy which can only serve to frustrate and confuse the plans of Faction Uno, and so on.

Connecticut's Governor is also another strong supporter of Bush the Younger, and he has lost a tremendous amount of prestige -- politically -- by first failing to deliver his State for Bush against John S. McCain, and secondly by seeing his own loyalists get their bottoms spanked in yesterday's general election.

These political cronies can act to give George the W. a weapon of constitutional proportions to use against the Algore. Will they do it? Can an appeal to their blatant partisanship, and their naked ambition succeed?

Confusion to the enemy!!

P.S. Regarding this part ....

: We cannot do very much about it. but i strongly believe that
: you and your colleagues are the presons who will wake up
: those who have still from 0,1 - to max. 5 % of old real
: human blood in us.

: Those are the ones we need to save.

: Those will be the new elite.

<< snip >>

: Only those who knows or learn how to transmute without satanic
: rituals, will survive.

I have no clue whatsoever as to what this really means. Transmute what? Into what? I find it hard to believe that some people are "not really human," while others are "really human." That assertion requires sound and believable proofs, otherwise it simply resembles National Socialist rantings of the worst order. We have problems enough with the realities of human frailties, weaknesses, pedophilia, greed that exceeds all need, and plain old village-idiot stupidity. Labelling the enemy as being "half human" or not-really human is a very bad tactic to take, in my opinion.