[Bing]

An awesome document!!! If it is not already, it should be inserted into the Path To Freedom so that the newbies can benefit from reading it soon after coming to FG website.

Thank you for sharing.

Bing

[Bing]

What I am going to do is go back and re – read your superb lead post and try and make sure I understand what is arguably, the single most important initial topic one should study when they begin the process of seeking the TRUTH to reclaim their natural personal liberty and freedom.

Personal Liberty + Freedom of Choice = Sovereignty.

It is a universal truth that when any national, state, or local government attempts to, or succeeds at, restricting and defining the scope of one's personal liberty and freedom of choice (through government franchises and license programs), it upsets the natural equation, and destroys personal sovereignty.

Bing

[Bing]

This website and material are accurate, credible, and reliable.

Concise and well researched.

Worth studying.

Bing

[Bing]

Bribes, by their very definition, are always fatal to due to process of law. Bribes and due process of law are mutually exclusive.

Where bribes exist, there is no due process of law.

And where there is no due process of law, the government's lawlessness is boundless. Not good.

Let's examine what the U.S. Supreme Court said on the nature of the origin and true definition of the term “bribery”, in Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37, 42 100 S. Ct. 311, 314 62 L. Ed.2d 199 (1979):

Quote:

At early common law, the crime of bribery extended only to the corruption of judges. 3 E. Coke, Institutes *144, *147 (1628). By the time of Blackstone, bribery was defined as an offense involving a judge or “other person concerned in the administration of justice” and included the giver as well as the receiver of the bribe. 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *139-*140 (1765). The writings of a 19th-century scholar inform us that by that time the crime of bribery had been expanded to include the corruption of any public official and the bribery of voters and witnesses as well. J. Stephen, Digest of the Criminal Law 85-87 (1877). And by the 20th century, England had adopted the Prevention of Corruption Act making criminal the commercial bribery of agents and employees. Act of 1906, 6 Edw. 7, ch. 34, amended by the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1916, 6 & 7 Geo. 5, ch. 64.

* * * * * * * *

Bing

[Bing]

This is beyond troubling.

The 1973 Croasmun Memo is a document that I first saw about 8 years ago on, I believe a website that the IRS and corrupt US Dept of Justice have since shut down.

Some would argue, that the THM needs MORE militancy, not less. And on this score, I think from a strategy standpoint, we would be well served to try and attract and retain recently retired US Military, especially those who come highly trained.

[Bing]

I am not so sure that calling them “tax hikes” is altogether accurate. Because the income tax system is not supposed to be used a device to transfer wealth from one segment of society to another. Income taxes, in the true meaning of the word, are supposed to be limited to support legitimate government operations.

These are not increases in income taxes, but rather, an increase in the theft rate made by the IRS and US Government, against the unsuspecting American sheeple.

Bing

[Bing]

I learned a long time ago that in essence, at bottom, there really is no difference between the so-called Democrats and the Republicans.

Both are liars and crooks.

THE END

[Bing]

WTF!!! 😡

If America has a real revolution, it can not come too soon.

[Bing]

WOW!!

What a great item of evidence that I will be sure to share with all my friends domiciled in Texas.

Thank you.

Bing

[Bing]

ROTFLMAO!!!

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaa!!! 😆

This is just what I need right now.

Thank you.

[Bing]

Larry, there is no such thing as, a “false historical fact”.

If something is false then that means that it is not true.

And if it is not true, then it can not be a “fact”.

Bing rests.

[Bing]

when I read this stuff, my great sense of complete and utter disappointment in the US Congress increases ten thousand fold. . . . and then some.

I would be curious to know how the proposed law defines the term “United States”.

I suspect that it is defined to mean only the federal zone and the federal United States.

Thanks, Franklin, for sharing this important information

Bing

A nontaxpaying nonresident alien who grows his own food and will continue to do so

[Bing]

Taxpayers do not have constitutional rights, therefore the constitutional ban on ex post facto laws does not apply to them, so far as I am aware.

Right before the alleged 14th Article to the Bill of Rights was declared to have been ratified, the US Congress issued a Proclamation.

In essence, Congress stipulated that an American Citizen located within a “foreign state” [ note here, that the 50 several states are considered to be 'foreign states' — see Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition ]has a fundamental right to expatriate his or her American Citizenship.

Quote:

The Act of July 27, 1868, Ch. 249, 15 Stat. 223-224,

CHAP. CCXLIX. An Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign States. Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and whereas in the recognition of this principle this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendants, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed: Therefore, Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of the government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, that all naturalized citizens of the United States, while in foreign states, shall be entitled to, and shall receive from this government, the same protection of persons and property that is accorded to native-born citizens in like situations and circumstances.

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That whenever it shall be made known to the President that any citizen of the United States has been unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the authority of any foreign government, it shall be the duty of the President forthwith to demand of that government the reasons for such imprisonment, and if it appears to be wrongful in violation of the rights of American Citizenship, the President shall forthwith demand the release of such citizen, and if the release so demanded is unreasonably delayed or refused, it shall be the duty of the President to use such means, not amounting to acts of war, as he may think necessary and proper to obtain or effectuate such release, and all the facts and proceedings relative there to shall as soon as practicable be communicated by the President to Congress.

Approved, July 27, 1868.

* * * ** ** **

To continue:

And we know from other US Supreme Court cases that the government is not allowed to tax the exercise of a constitutional or unalienable right. Therefore, the “U.S. citizenship” which is referred to in the lead post, if it is true that a $450 expatriation processing fee is now being charged, it must mean for federal U.S. citizenship, and likely does not apply to those who are U.S. citizens under the USA Constitution.

[Bing]

Thanks, man.

Since our resident hardball Constable Sonik is very busy doing other things, I thought it best to warn the FG newbies about the, ahem, “professor from Wayne State”.

Gosh, one is left wondering what kind of academic rigor one might expect from Wayne State if they have had to resort to marketing the University, by bragging to prosepctive students that they have a McDonalds that is centrally located right on campus?

Backtrack to the 1990s:

Bing's Dad: “Son, I think you should go to Yale, afterall, they have offered you $30,000 in grants and they have 2 Burger Kings and a Harry's Hot dog stand right on campus. And Harvard only has Bartley's Burgers and Pizzaria Uno in Harvard Square.”

Bing's Mom: “No, no, no. Forget Harvard and Yale. I think you should open your eyes to new experiences and attend University of Alabama because they have 4 TCBY Yogurt shops within a 2 mile radius of campus. And you have never tasted yogurt. Plus they have a Wendys on campus, only 120 feet from the Freshman dorms.”

Bing: “Yale is okay, I guess. But I really, really want to attend Wayne State University because their marketing brochure says that they have a lot of activity on campus and I can work off the calories from the McDonalds Cheeseburgers, by rock climbing. It is slam dunk.”

The END.

PS. Go Crimson Tide!!!!

[Bing]

In addition to what franklin posted above, let us not forget that the U.S. Government has, by its decades long, and steadfast refusal and inability to secure Arizona's borders, also breached its constitutional duty to protect the 50 several states from invasion.

Here is hoping that Arizona prevails.

Bing