Smokin’ Mirrors Podcasts 2


Smokin’ Mirrors

Podcast Archive

Files


Episode TitleShow DateArtistDownload
The Smokin Mirrors Show - 2017-07-10 - #alternative-tech #free-energy #larry-woods #technology2017-07-10robwerks [ Download Podcast - 14.62 MB ]
The Smokin Mirrors Show - 2017-02-04 - Rob and Steve discuss various topics2017-02-04Robwerks [ Download Podcast - 21.21 MB ]
The Smokin Mirrors Show - 2017-01-21 - Jennifer Ruby discusses land patents2017-01-21Robwerks [ Download Podcast - 25.48 MB ]
The Smokin Mirrors Show - 2017-01-16 With Larry Woods and Jerry Decker2017-01-16Robwerks [ Download Podcast - 27.72 MB ]
The Smokin Mirrors Show - 2017-01-14 - Guest: Pat Baker2017-01-14robwerks [ Download Podcast - 22.51 MB ]
The Smokin Mirrors Show - 2017-01-07 - Guest: Eddie Craig2017-01-07robwerks [ Download Podcast - 23.14 MB ]

<!-- <

Similar Posts:

0
The following two tabs change content below.
I am the founder of Real Liberty Media. I believe in absolute freedom for all people.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

What is 14 + 4 ?
Please leave these two fields as-is:
IMPORTANT! To be able to proceed, you need to solve the following simple math (so we know that you are a human) :-)

2 thoughts on “Smokin’ Mirrors Podcasts

  • snoop4truth

    EDDIE CRAIG & THE “NO COMMERCE, NO DRIVER’S LICENSE NEEDED HOAX” !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    FIRST SEE THE HOAX HERE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3nok7Cby28 (Go to video FIRST. Then, go to 54:00-112:00; 118:00-120:45; 133:00-134:00 & 235:00-236:30.). These are the exact times of the hoax exposed below.

    THE HOAX:
    Eddie Craig falsely claims that the STATES CANNOT require drivers to have driver’s licenses to drive motor vehicles UNLESS THEY ARE ENGAGED IN “[interstate] COMMERCE”. But, this is exactly BACKWARDS (OPPOSITE to the truth).

    THE TRUTH:
    The STATES CAN require drivers to have driver’s licenses to drive motor vehicles ONLY IF THEY ARE “NOT” ENGAGED IN “[interstate] COMMERCE”.

    BACKGROUND:
    The original source of the word, “COMMERCE” as used in connection with driver’s license law, is Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/pa…le-i-section-8 . This clause empowered the FEDERAL government to regulate driver’s licences ONLY IF the driver WAS ENGAGED IN “COMMERCE among [between] the several states” (“interstate COMMERCE”). The tenth amendment empowered the STATES to regulate driver’s licenses IN ALL OTHER CONTEXTS (meaning OUTSIDE of “[interstate] COMMERCE”). http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/tenth-amendment. This is why the STATES can regulate driver’s licenses ONLY IF the driver IS “NOT” ENGEGED IN “[interstate] COMMERCE”. But, Eddie Craig does not know this.

    CONSTITUTIONAL LAW:
    The U.S. Constitution divided the powers between the FEDERAL government and the STATE governments. This division of powers WAS BASED ON LEGAL SUBJECT MATTER. The FEDERAL government was empowered to regulate a TINY LIST of legal SUBJECTS that were expressly delegated to it in the U.S. Constitution. Under the tenth amendment, the STATES were empowered to regulate EVERYTHING ELSE (ALL OTHER LEGAL SUBJECTS). Under this division of powers, a legal subject must be regulated EITHER by FEDERAL law OR by STATE law, BUT NOT BY BOTH. So, if a legal subject IS governed by FEDERAL law, it IS NOT governed by STATE law. Likewise, if a legal subject IS governed by STATE law, it IS NOT governed by FEDERAL law. This means that in terms of subject matter, FEDERAL law and STATE laws ARE “OPPOSITES” OF ONE ANOTHER. Thus, it is NOT true that STATE traffic & transportation codes are “based on” the FEDERAL traffic & transportation codes, BECAUSE FEDERAL CODES AND STATE CODES REGULATE “OPPOSITE” LEGAL SUBJECTS (“[interstate] COMMERCE” v. (“NON-[interstate] COMMERCE”). But, Eddie Craig does not know this.

    APPLICATION:
    FEDERAL driver’s license laws ONLY APPLY to drivers of motor vehicles WHO ARE engaged in “[interstate] COMMERCE”. STATE drivers license laws ONLY APPLY to drivers of motor vehicles WHO ARE NOT engaged in “[interstate] COMMERCE”. So, if YOU ARE a driver engaged in “[interstate] COMMERCE”, then you are governed by FEDERAL law (which requires you to have a drivers license to drive a motor vehicle). If YOU ARE NOT a driver engaged in “[interstate] COMMERCE”, then you are governed by STATE law (which requires you to have a driver’s license to drive a motor vehicle). Either way, A DRIVER’S LICENSE IS REQUIRED TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE. But, Eddie Craig does not know this.

    HOW WELL DO EDDIE CRAIG’S LEGAL THEORIES WORK IN COURT?
    Answer: They don’t! EDDIE CRAIG ACTUALLY LOST HIS OWN MISDEMEANOR SPEEDING CASE because he used this very same amateur legal theory in court (“STATE driving laws do not apply to me unless I am engaged in [interstate] COMMERCE.”) . State of Texas v. Eddie (Eugene) Craig, Case no. C-1-CR-12-100045, Offense date 12-11-2011, ARREST Date 06-25-2012, CONVICTION Date 06-28-2013, Travis County, Texas. What’s worse, Craig CONTINUED to make and post videos online in which he peddled this very same amateur legal theory AFTER he LOST that case (after 6- 28-2013), AFTER HE KNEW THAT IT DOES NOT ACTUALLY WORK!

    DISCLAIMER:
    The ownership, management and staff of InfoWars are not responsible for the false claims of Eddie Craig. They had no way to know (and did not know) that Eddie Craig was not telling the truth.

    NOTE: Advising people what to say to law enforcement officers and to judges may constitute the unauthorized practice of law in Texas, a crime. Victims who have paid for classes, seminars and/or books involving Eddie Craig may be entitled to a refund under STATE or FEDERAL law.

    THE LAW:
    You will note that Eddie Craig’s amateur legal theory HAS A 100% FAILURE RATE in court!

    1. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c…&as_sdt=400062.

    2. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca…&as_sdt=400063.

    3. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c…&as_sdt=400064.

    4. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c…n&as_sdt=40006

    5. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c…n&as_sdt=40006

    6. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c…2&as_sdt=40006

    7. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c…2&as_sdt=40006

    8. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c…n&as_sdt=40006

    9. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c…n&as_sdt=40006

    10. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c…n&as_sdt=40006

    11. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c…n&as_sdt=40006

    12. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c…n&as_sdt=40006

    13. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c…n&as_sdt=40006

    14. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c…&as_sdt=400068.

    15. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca…n&as_sdt=40006 (SEE ENTIRE CASE)

    16. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca…=40006

    CONCLUSION:
    The FEDERAL government has the constitutional power to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver’s licenses IF THEY “ARE” ENGAGED IN “[interstate] COMMERCE”. The STATES have the constitutional power to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver’s licenses IF THEY ARE “NOT” ENGAGED IN “[interstate] COMMERCE”. Either way, A DRIVER’S LICENSE IS REQUIRED.

    APPLICATION:
    So, if you are a driver who has proven that you ARE “NOT” engaged in “interstate COMMERCE”, then you have just proven THAT YOU ARE GOVERNED BY STATE LAW (which requires you to have a driver’s license to drive a motor vehicle and which requires you to otherwise comply with all other STATE driving regulations). But Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    ABOUT EDDIE CRAIG:
    Eddie Craig claims that he is a “FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF” and an “EXPERT” in the law. But, this is not so. The closest that Eddie Craig ever came to being a “FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF” was as a “PART-TIME JAILER” in Nacogdoches County, Texas for a period of TWO-WEEKS in 1992 at which time he was unceremoniously FIRED “NOT ELIGIBLE FOR RE-HIRE”. Craig uses this his TWO-WEEK tenure as a PART-TIME JAILER as the basis for his “CREDIBILITY” as an “EXPERT” on traffic, travel and motor vehicle codes. But, Eddie Craig is not credible and is not an expert in the law.

    ABOUT SNOOP4TRUTH:
    Snoop4truth is a legal expert and whistle blower who exposes online hoaxes. Snoop4truth did not reveal this information to harm Eddie Craig. Instead, Snoop4truth revealed this information solely to reduce the CATASTROPHIC DAMAGE that such INTENTIONAL FRAUD inflicts upon the American people every single day. Had it not been for Eddie Craig’s role in the “FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF HOAX”, Snoop4truth would not have revealed this information here.

    The message to hoaxers and charlatans? Just tell the truth.

    1+